Detailed Action
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on 07/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 8, 15, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 7-20 remain pending in the application. Rejections of claims 6-14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (pre-AIA 35 U. S. C. 112, second paragraph) are withdrawn.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such a claim limitation is: “inter pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism” in claims 1, 15, and 20.
Because the claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 15, and 20 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As for the limitation "inter pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism”, a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph): [0151]-[0152] of the specification, Fig. 5 of the drawing and claims 7 and 18 disclose "distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism” includes a motor connected to a gear and the gear connected to a rack.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1, 3, 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over PATEL (US 20170237977 A1) in view of TANAKA (US 20070196093 A1).
Regarding claim 1, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses a method of inter pupillary distance adjustment (e.g., Figs. 8-9; inter-pupillary distance adjustment method), applied to a head-mounted display device (e.g., Figs. 2-5; head-mounted display device), comprising:
after a user wears the head-mounted display device, wherein the head-mounted display device (Figs. 2-5; head-mounted display device) comprises an IPD adjustment mechanism and two optical display modules (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]; inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism comprising a motor 210 connected to a pinion gear and the pinion gear connected to a rack 220A for control of right lens 240 and right display 250 and connected to a rack 220B for control of left lens 240 and left display 260), and the IPD adjustment mechanism is configured to drive the two optical display modules to move in a first direction, wherein the first direction is a direction in which the two optical display modules move close to or away from each other (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the motor able to engage the gear assembly to move the right display 250 and the left display 260 closer or to move the right display and the left display further apart based on the user inter-pupillary distance);
controlling the IPD adjustment mechanism to operate and move by a second distance in a second direction (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the right display 250 and the left display 260 move closer or further away corresponding to a first direction or a second direction, the moving distance is determined by user inter-pupillary distance), wherein the IPD adjustment mechanism drives the two optical display modules to move to generate a movement, and a distance between the two optical display modules after the movement matches an inter pupillary distance of the user (e.g., Fig. 8, Steps 830 and 860, Fig. 9, Steps 920-970, and [0040], [0043]; distance between the right display 250 and the left display 260 is adjusted to match user inter-pupillary distance), wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the two displays 250 and 260 move closer or further away corresponding to the first direction or the second direction).
PATEL does not disclose controlling the IPD adjustment mechanism to move by a first distance in a first direction to eliminate a backlash error of the IPD adjustment mechanism as claimed. However, PATEL (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]) discloses the IPD adjustment mechanism is a gear system. The backlash is well known in a gear system. As a reference, TANAKA (e.g., Fig. 1) discloses a gear adjustment mechanism. TANAKA further discloses controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to move by a first distance in a first direction to eliminate a backlash error of the gear adjustment mechanism, and the controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to move by the first distance in the first direction comprises: controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to operate and move by the first distance in the first direction, to drive the optical modules to move beyond a preset distance or to move to an inter pupillary distance limit location, wherein the first distance is greater than 0 (e.g., Figs. 3, Steps 18 and 38, Figs. 4, 6, and 8, Fig. 13, Steps 53-2 and 53-5, and [0016]-[0019], [0076]-[0079]; take Fig. 6 as an example, which shows a backlash elimination and is reproduced for reference, the gear adjustment mechanism uses a reverse-backlash routine and is controlled to move by the first distance L11 in the first direction or +X direction to pass the target position and move beyond a predetermined distance DP (distance between a reference position and a target position). Then, it moves back by a second distance in the opposite direction or X direction. This action removes gear slack and stop precisely at the final target position).
PNG
media_image1.png
731
1384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of gear adjustment mechanism from TANAKA to the inter-pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism of the head-mounted display device of PATEL to precisely drive the two optical display modules so that a distance between the two optical display modules matches an inter pupillary distance of the user. The combination/motivation would be to provide an IPD adjustment mechanism with a minimized backlash and an increased precision for a motion control.
Regarding claim 3, PATEL in view of TANAKA discloses the method according to claim 1, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses wherein the first direction is a preset direction, and the preset direction is the direction in which the two optical display modules move close to or away from each other (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the right display 250 and the left display 260 move closer or further away corresponding to a first direction or a second direction opposite to the first direction).
Regarding claim 8, PATEL in view of TANAKA discloses the method according to claim 1, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses wherein before the controlling the IPD adjustment mechanism to move by the first distance in the first direction, the method further comprising: obtaining inter pupillary distance adjustment information, wherein the inter pupillary distance adjustment information represents an inter pupillary distance adjustment value adjusted by the head-mounted display device; and determining at least one of the first direction or the second direction based on the inter pupillary distance adjustment information (e.g., Fig. 8, Steps 830-860, Fig. 9, Steps 920-970, and [0040], [0043]; distance between the right display 250 and the left display 260 is adjusted to move closer or further apart to match user inter-pupillary distance).
Regarding claim 15, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-10) discloses a head-mounted display device, comprising:
two optical display modules (first display module comprising a right lens 240 and a right display 250 and second display module comprising a left lens 240 and a left display 260);
an inter pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism configured to drive the two optical display modules to move (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]; inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism comprising a motor 210 connected to a pinion gear and the pinion gear connected to a rack 220A for control of right lens 240 and right display 250 and connected to a rack 220B for control of left lens 240 and left display 260); a memory (Fig. 10 and [0044]; memory 1020); and
a processor (Fig. 10 and [0044]; processor 1010); and
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions Fig. 10 and [0044]; memory 1020 stores instructions), which when executed by the processor, cause the head-mounted display device to perform:
after a user wears the head-mounted display device (e.g., Figs. 2-5; head-mounted display device), controlling the IPD adjustment mechanism to move in a first direction, and wherein the first direction is a direction in which the two optical display modules move close to or away from each other (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the motor able to engage the gear assembly to move the right display 250 and the left display 260 closer or to move the right display and the left display further apart based on the user inter-pupillary distance); and
control the IPD adjustment mechanism (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]; inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism comprising a motor 210 connected to a pinion gear and the pinion gear connected to a rack 220A for control of right lens 240 and right display 250 and connected to a rack 220B for control of left lens 240 and left display 260) to operate and move by a second distance in a second direction (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the right display 250 and the left display 260 are driven to move closer or further away corresponding to a first direction or a second direction, the moving distance is determined by user inter-pupillary distance), wherein the IPD adjustment mechanism drives the two optical display modules to move to generate a movement, and a distance between the two optical display. modules after the movement matches an inter pupillary distance of the user (e.g., Fig. 8, Steps 830 and 860, Fig. 9, Steps 920-970, and [0040], [0043]; distance between the right display 250 and the left display 260 is adjusted to match user inter-pupillary distance) , wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the two displays 250 and 260 move closer or further away corresponding to the first direction or the second direction).
PATEL does not disclose controlling the IPD adjustment mechanism to move by a first distance in a first direction to eliminate a backlash error of the IPD adjustment mechanism as claimed. However, PATEL (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]) discloses the IPD adjustment mechanism is a gear system. The backlash is well known in a gear system. As a reference, TANAKA (e.g., Fig. 1) discloses a gear adjustment mechanism. TANAKA further discloses controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to move by a first distance in a first direction to eliminate a backlash error of the gear adjustment mechanism, and the controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to move by the first distance in the first direction comprises: controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to operate and move by the first distance in the first direction, to drive the optical modules to move beyond a preset distance or to move to an inter pupillary distance limit location, wherein the first distance is greater than 0 (e.g., Figs. 3, Steps 18 and 38, Figs. 4, 6, and 8, Fig. 13, Steps 53-2 and 53-5, and [0016]-[0019], [0076]-[0079]; take Fig. 6 as an example, which shows a backlash elimination and is reproduced on page 5 for reference, the gear adjustment mechanism uses a reverse-backlash routine and is controlled to move by the first distance L11 in the first direction or +X direction to pass the target position and move beyond a predetermined distance DP (distance between a reference position and a target position). Then, it moves back by a second distance in the opposite direction or X direction. This action removes gear slack and stop precisely at the final target position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of gear adjustment mechanism from TANAKA to the inter-pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism of the head-mounted display device of PATEL to precisely drive the two optical display modules so that a distance between the two optical display modules matches an inter pupillary distance of the user. The combination/motivation would be to provide an IPD adjustment mechanism with a minimized backlash and an increased precision for a motion control.
Regarding claim 20, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-10) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored therein (Fig. 10 and [0044]; memory 1020 stores instructions), which when executed by a processor (Fig. 10 and [0044]; processor 1010), cause the processor to
after a user wears the head-mounted display device (Figs. 2-5; head-mounted display device), wherein a head-mounted display device comprises the IPD adjustment mechanism and two optical display modules (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]; inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism comprising a motor 210 connected to a pinion gear and the pinion gear connected to a rack 220A for control of right lens 240 and right display 250 and connected to a rack 220B for control of left lens 240 and left display 260), and the IPD adjustment mechanism is configured to drive the two optical display modules to move in a first direction, wherein the head-mounted display device comprises the IPD adjustment mechanism and two optical display modules, and the IPD adjustment mechanism is configured to drive the two optical display modules to move, and wherein the first direction is a direction in which the two optical display modules move close to or away from each other (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the motor able to engage the gear assembly to move the right display 250 and the left display 260 closer or to move the right display and the left display further apart based on the user inter-pupillary distance); and
control the IPD adjustment mechanism to operate and move by a second distance in a second direction (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the right display 250 and the left display 260 move closer or further away corresponding to a first direction or a second direction, the moving distance is determined by user inter-pupillary distance), wherein the IPD adjustment mechanism drives the two optical display modules to move to generate a movement, and a distance between the two optical display modules after the movement matches an inter pupillary distance of the user (e.g., Fig. 8, Steps 830 and 860, Fig. 9, Steps 920-970, and [0040], [0043]; distance between the right display 250 and the left display 260 is adjusted to match user inter-pupillary distance), wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction (Figs. 8-9 and [0039]-[0043] and claims 1-2; the two displays 250 and 260 move closer or further away corresponding to the first direction or the second direction).
PATEL does not disclose to control the IPD adjustment mechanism to move by a first distance in a first direction to eliminate a backlash error of the IPD adjustment mechanism as claimed. However, PATEL (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]) discloses the IPD adjustment mechanism is a gear system. The backlash is well known in a gear system. As a reference, TANAKA (e.g., Fig. 1) discloses a gear adjustment mechanism. TANAKA further discloses controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to move by a first distance in a first direction to eliminate a backlash error of the gear adjustment mechanism, and the controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to move by the first distance in the first direction comprises: controlling the gear adjustment mechanism to operate and move by the first distance in the first direction, to drive the optical modules to move beyond a preset distance or to move to an inter pupillary distance limit location, wherein the first distance is greater than 0 (e.g., Figs. 3, Steps 18 and 38, Figs. 4, 6, and 8, Fig. 13, Steps 53-2 and 53-5, and [0016]-[0019], [0076]-[0079]; take Fig. 6 as an example, which shows a backlash elimination and is reproduced on page 5 for reference, the gear adjustment mechanism uses a reverse-backlash routine and is controlled to move by the first distance L11 in the first direction or +X direction to pass the target position and move beyond a predetermined distance DP (distance between a reference position and a target position). Then, it moves back by a second distance in the opposite direction or X direction. This action removes gear slack and stop precisely at the final target position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of gear adjustment mechanism from TANAKA to the inter-pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism of the head-mounted display device of PATEL to precisely drive the two optical display modules so that a distance between the two optical display modules matches an inter pupillary distance of the user. The combination/motivation would be to provide an IPD adjustment mechanism with a minimized backlash and an increased precision for a motion control.
7. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over PATEL (US 20170237977 A1) in view of TANAKA (US 20070196093 A1) and further in view of LIN (US 20180348860 A1).
Regarding claim 9, PATEL in view of TANAKA discloses the method according to claim 8, PATEL discloses wherein the head-mounted display device further comprises an head tracking apparatus and an eye tracking apparatus to obtain obtaining inter pupillary distance (Figs. 6-7 and [0032]-[0034]). As another reference, LIN discloses wherein the head-mounted display device further comprises an eye tracking apparatus (Figs. 1-2; eye tracking sensor 124b; [0037]), and the obtaining inter pupillary distance adjustment information comprises: obtaining an inter pupillary distance offset of a single eye by using the eye tracking apparatus, wherein the inter pupillary distance offset of the single eye indicates a deviation between a pupil of the single eye and a corresponding optical display module (Figs. 3-9 and [0044]-[0046], [0054]-[0056]; determine the interpupillary distance value and determine the interpupillary distance offset determined by a threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from LIN to the inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism of PATEL in view of TANAKA so that the right display and the left display are allocated by the displaying device according to the interpupillary distance value.
Regarding claim 10, PATEL in view of TANAKA and further in view of LIN discloses the method according to claim 9, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses wherein the head-mounted display device further comprises an IPD adjustment sensor, and a detection value of the IPD adjustment sensor represents an inter pupillary distance of the head-mounted display device ([0028], [0042], and [0032]-[0033]; IPD adjustment sensor comprising a position sensor detects a inter-display position and a head-tracking or eye tracking sensor detects the interpupillary distance); and the obtaining inter pupillary distance adjustment information further comprises: obtaining a current detection value of the IPD adjustment sensor ([0028] and [0042]; position sensor detects a position of the display); and determining at least one of a target inter pupillary distance value or a target detection value based on a calibration table (PATAL, Fig. 8, Steps 830-860, and Fig. 9, Steps 920-960; LIN, Fig. 3, Steps 202-210; determining a target interpupillary distance value), the inter pupillary distance offset of the single eye (PATAL, Figs. 6-7 and [0032]-[0033]; LIN, Figs. 3-9 and [0044]-[0046], [0054]-[0056]; determining interpupillary distance offset), and the current detection value ([0028], [0042], and [0032]-[0033]; position sensor detects a display position and a head-tracking or eye tracking sensor detects the interpupillary distance), wherein the calibration table indicates a correspondence between the detection value of the IPD adjustment sensor and the inter pupillary distance of the head-mounted display device (Fig. 8, Steps 820-850; detection values associated with corresponding IPD values).
Regarding claim 11, PATEL in view of TANAKA and further in view of LIN discloses the method according to claim 10, LIN discloses wherein the distance between the two optical display modules matches the inter pupillary distance of the user comprises: |δx|≤k, wherein δx represents an inter pupillary distance offset that is of the single eye at a current moment and that is obtained by using the eye tracking apparatus, and k represents a preset inter pupillary distance offset error (Figs. 3-9 and [0044]-[0046], [0054]-[0056], [0067]-[0068]; e.g., Fig. 4 or Fig. 5, Wwd1<IPD-Wdp, and Fig. 7, 2R1<IPD-Wdp). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from LIN to the inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism of PATEL in view of TANAKA so that the right display and the left display are allocated by the displaying device according to the interpupillary distance value.
Regarding claim 12, PATEL in view of TANAKA and further in view of LIN discloses the method according to claim 10, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses wherein the head-mounted display device further comprises the IPD adjustment sensor, and the detection value of the IPD adjustment sensor represents the inter pupillary distance of the head-mounted display device; and that the distance between the two optical display modules matches the inter pupillary distance of the user comprises: |V2-V1|≤δV, and/or |L2-L1|≤δL (Figs. 8 and Fig. 9), wherein V1 represents a first detection value of the IPD adjustment sensor at a current moment, V2 represents the target detection value corresponding to a target inter pupillary distance of the head-mounted display device, L1 represents a first inter pupillary distance value that corresponds to the first detection value V1 and that is determined according to the calibration table, L2 represents the target inter pupillary distance value, δV represents a preset detection value error, δL represents a preset inter pupillary distance error, and the calibration table indicates the correspondence between the detection value of the IPD adjustment sensor and the inter pupillary distance of the head-mounted display device (Fig. 9, Step 940 or 960, and [0040], [0043], current inter - lens distance L1, desired inter - lens distance L2, and |L2-L1|=0). In addition, LIN (Figs. 3-9 and [0044]-[0046], [0054]-[0056], [0067]-[0068]) discloses the same limitations as claimed.
8. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over PATEL (US 20170237977 A1) in view of TANAKA (US 20070196093 A1) and LIN (US 20180348860 A1) and further in view of ABELE (US 20200365066 A1).
Regarding claim 13, PATEL in view of TANAKA discloses the method according to claim 12, but does not disclose outputting prompt information indicating that inter pupillary distance adjustment of the head-mounted display device ends. However, ABELE (Figs. 2-7) discloses a method further comprising: outputting prompt information indicating that inter pupillary distance adjustment of the head-mounted display device ends (Fig. 7 and [0052]-[0053]; user interface for interpupillary distance adjustment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from ABELE to the inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism of PATEL in view of TANAKA and LIN. The combination/motivation would be to provide a user interface for automatic control of a user interpupillary distance.
Regarding claim 14, PATEL in view of TANAKA discloses the method according to claim 13, ABELE (Figs. 2-7) discloses wherein the prompt information further comprises an inter pupillary distance value of the head-mounted display device after the inter pupillary distance adjustment (Fig. 7 and [0052]-[0053]; user interface for interpupillary distance adjustment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from ABELE to the inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism of PATEL in view of TANAKA and LIN for the same reason above.
9. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over PATEL (US 20170237977 A1) in view of TANAKA (US 20070196093 A1) and further in view of LEE (US 20220404578 A1).
Regarding claim 16, PATEL in view of TANAKA discloses the head-mounted display device according to claim 15, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses further comprising an eye tracking apparatus (Figs. 6-7 and [0032]-[0034]; eye tracking device), but does not disclose the eye tracking apparatus comprising at least one light source and at least one camera module. However, LEE (Figs. 1-3) discloses a head-mounted display device, further comprising an eye tracking apparatus (eye tracking sensors 140), comprising at least one light source and at least one camera module (Figs. 2-3 and [0152]; eye tracking sensors 140 comprising a light source and a camera); the at least one light source is configured to emit light to a human eye (Figs. 1-3 and 9 and [0152], [0189]); and the at least one camera module is configured to obtain a part of the light reflected after the at least one light source irradiates the human eye (Figs. 1-3 and 9 and [0152], [0189]). LEE also discloses using eye tracking sensor to obtain inter pupillary distance ([0025] and claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from LEE to the inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism of PATEL in view of TANAKA so that the right display and the left display are allocated by the displaying device according to the interpupillary distance value.
Regarding claim 17, PATEL in view of TANAKA and further in view of LEE discloses the head-mounted display device according to claim 16, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses further comprising an IPD adjustment sensor, wherein a detection value of the IPD adjustment sensor represents an inter pupillary distance of the head-mounted display device ([0028], [0042], and [0032]-[0033]; IPD adjustment sensor comprising a position sensor detects a inter-display position and a head-tracking or eye tracking sensor detects the interpupillary distance).
Regarding claim 18, PATEL in view of TANAKA and further in view of LEE discloses the head-mounted display device according to claim 17, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses wherein the IPD adjustment mechanism comprises at least one motor and at least one IPD adjustment mechanical structure connected to the at least one motor, the at least one IPD adjustment mechanical structure comprises a gear and a rack, the gear is separately connected to the at least one motor and the rack, and the rack is further connected to at least one of the two optical display modules; and the at least one IPD adjustment mechanical structure is configured to drive, under a driving of the at least one motor, at least one of the two optical display modules to move (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]; inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism comprising a motor 210 connected to a pinion gear and the pinion gear connected to a rack 220A for control of right lens 240 and right display 250 to move and connected to a rack 220B for control of left lens 240 and left display 260 to move).
Regarding claim 19, PATEL in view of TANAKA and further in view of LEE discloses the head-mounted display device according to claim 18, PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-9) discloses wherein the at least one motor includes a motor, and the at least one IPD adjustment mechanical structure is configured to drive, under the driving of the motor, the two optical display modules to move simultaneously (alternative limitation, it is interpreted optional, in addition, Figs. 8-9 and [0004], [0028] and claim 1 teaches the right display 250 and the left display 260 move closer or further away simultaneously); or the at least one motor includes two motors, each motor of the at least one motor corresponds to an IPD adjustment mechanical structure of the at least one IPD adjustment mechanical structure, the at least one IPD adjustment mechanical structure includes two IPD adjustment mechanical structures, and the two IPD adjustment mechanical structures are connected to the two optical display modules in a one-to-one correspondence; and each IPD adjustment mechanical structure is configured to drive, under a driving of a corresponding motor, a corresponding optical display module to move (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]; inter-pupillary distance adjustment mechanism comprising a motor 210 connected to a pinion gear and the pinion gear connected to a rack 220A for control of right lens 240 and right display 250 to move and connected to a rack 220B for control of left lens 240 and left display 260 to move).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11. Applicant has amended claims 1, 15, and 20. Applicant further argues that the cited references do not disclose the new limitations of amended claims 1, 15, and 20.
PNG
media_image2.png
1130
1872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. PATEL (e.g., Figs. 2-10) discloses a head-mounted display device, comprising: two optical display modules, the first display module A comprising a right lens 240 and a right display 250 and the second display module B comprising a left lens 240 and a left display 260; and inter-pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism comprising a motor 210 connected to a pinion gear and the pinion gear connected to a rack 220A/220B to drive the first display module A and the second display module B move closer or further away, the moving distance is determined by a predetermined user inter-pupillary distance, and moving direction to bring the two display modules A and B closer or further away corresponds to a first direction or a second direction (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]). Fig. 1 shows an idea scenario as disclosed by PATEL, wherein a distance D1 between the first display module A and the second display module B is equal to a user inter-pupillary distance D0, or D1=D0. Fig. 2 shows a scenario, wherein a distance D1’ between the first display module A and the second display module B is larger than the user inter-pupillary distance D0, or D1=D0. In this case, the IPD moves the first display module A in a first direction to bring the first display module A closer to the second display module B so that the first display module A is stopped at the target position P1 and D1’=D0.
PNG
media_image3.png
736
1393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PATEL (Figs. 2-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031]) discloses the IPD adjustment mechanism is a gear system. Backlash is the clearance or gap between mating gear teeth and is well known in a gear system. PATEL does not disclose controlling the IPD adjustment mechanism to move by a first distance in a first direction to eliminate a backlash error of the IPD adjustment mechanism as claimed. However, TANAKA (e.g., Fig. 1) discloses a gear adjustment mechanism and an elimination of a backlash error of the gear adjustment mechanism (e.g., Figs. 3, Steps 18 and 38, Figs. 4, 6, and 8, Fig. 13, Steps 53-2 and 53-5, and [0016]-[0019], [0076]-[0079]). Take Fig. 6 as an example, which teaches moving an optical module to a target position with a backlash elimination and is reproduced for reference. The gear adjustment mechanism uses a reverse-backlash routine and is controlled to move by the first distance L11 in the first direction or +X direction to pass the target position and move beyond a predetermined distance DP (a distance between a reference position and a target position). Then, it moves back by a second distance in the opposite direction or X direction. This action removes gear slack and stops precisely at the final target position P(F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of gear adjustment mechanism from TANAKA to the inter-pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism of the head-mounted display device of PATEL to precisely drive the two optical display modules so that a distance between the two optical display modules matches an inter pupillary distance of the user. The combination/motivation would be to provide an IPD adjustment mechanism with a minimized backlash and an increased precision for a motion control.
12. In the Non-Final Office action of 0428/2026, the claim limitation “inter pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism” in claims 1, 15, and 20 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The applicant argues that these claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. MPEP 2181 states that a claim element that does not include the term "means" or "step" triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, the “mechanism” as claimed is considered to be a substitute for “means”, which lack sufficient structure for performing the function and are not preceded by a structural modifier. For those reasons, the claim limitations " inter pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism” fells within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
As for the limitation "inter pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism”, a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph): [0151]-[0152] of the specification, Fig. 5 of the drawing and claims 7 and 18 disclose "distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism” includes a motor connected to a gear and the gear connected to a rack. According to applicant’s arguments (Remark, page 9), applicant appears to agree with examiner’s interpretation of "inter pupillary distance (IPD) adjustment mechanism”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUZHEN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1407. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-18:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUZHEN SHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights