DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,281. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the addition of the limitations “a lens” and “receive image light from the image source via the lens” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,281.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,796,799. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “the one or more processors are configured to perform a method comprising: identifying a first portion of the image light; and in accordance with a determination that the first portion of the environmental light corresponds to the first portion of the image light, blocking, via the controllable light-blocking element, the first portion of the environmental light from reaching the eye” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,796,799.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,650,416. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a partially-reflective surface, wherein: the light source faces a first side of the partially-reflective surface, the image source faces the first side of the partially-reflective surface, the light source is configured to project light via the partially-reflective surface toward the image source along a first axis, the image source is configured to receive the projected light and further configured to reflect image light toward the partially-reflective surface, and the partially-reflective surface is configured to transmit the image light along the first axis” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,650,416.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,002,961. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a partially-reflective surface, wherein: the light source faces a first side of the partially-reflective surface and is positioned in a first region on the first side of the partially-reflective surface, the image source faces the first side of the partially-reflective surface and is positioned in the first region on the first side of the partially-reflective surface, the light source is configured to project light via the partially-reflective surface toward the image source, the image source is configured to reflect the projected light as image light toward the partially-reflective surface, and the partially-reflective surface is configured to transmit the image light along a first axis” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,002,961.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 9,091,851. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a see-through display assembly including an image source and a partially reflecting mirror that reflects and transmits respective portions of image light from the image source and scene light from a see-through view of an external environment” renders claims 1-20 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 9,091,851.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,001,644. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “an optics module comprising a light source, an image source, and an angled partially-reflective surface, wherein the light source and the image source are positioned opposite one another on opposite sides of the angled partially-reflective surface, wherein the light source projects light through the angled partially-reflective surface to the image source, the image source projects image light to the angled partially-reflective surface, and the angled partially-reflective surface reflects the image light towards a flat combiner” renders claims 1-20 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,001,644.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,890,760. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “an angled partially-reflective surface, wherein: the light source faces a first side of the angled partially-reflective surface, the image source faces the first side of the angled partially-reflective surface, the light source is configured to project light via the angled partially-reflective surface toward the image source, the image source is configured to reflect the projected light as image light toward the angled partially-reflective surface, and the angled partially-reflective surface is configured to transmit the image light along a first axis” renders claims 1-20 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,890,760.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,436,392. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a partially reflective and partially transmissive surface configured to reflect illumination light from the light source, further configured to receive image content light from the display panel via the lens, and further configured to communicate the image content light” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,436,392.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 9,329,387. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a flat combiner to reflect the image light while simultaneously transmitting more than 50% of incident unpolarized light from the environment, along an optical axis that proceeds to the user's eye to provide a view of the displayed image overlaid onto a see-through view of the environment” renders claims 1-20 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 9,329,387.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,481,393. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a flat combiner having a first side and a second side positioned to reflect the image light off of the first side and simultaneously transmit incident light from an environment through the first and second side, along an optical axis generally perpendicular to the first axis that proceeds to a user's eye to provide a view of a displayed image overlaid onto a see-through view of the environment” renders claims 1-20 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,481,393.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/322, 562 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “an image engine surface configured to reflect illumination light from the light source, further configured to receive image content light from the display panel via the lens, and further configured to communicate the image content light” renders claims 1-20 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/322, 562 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garoutte et al. (US 2006/0098293) in view of Border et al. (US 2012/0119978; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Garoutte discloses, a wearable head device (Fig. 5) comprising:
an image source (14);
a lens (72);
a combiner element (20), the combiner element configured to:
receive image light from the image source via the lens (Para. 0040 and see Fig. 5),
receive environmental light (22) from an environment of the wearable head device, and
concurrently present, to an eye of a user of the wearable head device, the image light and the environmental light (Para. 0020 and 0040-0041).
Garoutte does not disclose a controllable light-blocking element configured to communicate with one or more processors, the controllable light-blocking element configured to selectively block a first portion of the environmental light from reaching the eye based on a determination by the one or processors that a first portion of the environmental light corresponds to a first portion of the image light.
Border teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make a controllable light-blocking element (480, 580) configured to communicate with one or more processors (Para. 0025), the controllable light-blocking element configured to selectively block a first portion of the environmental light from reaching the eye (Para. 0033-0035 and 0041-0042) based on a determination by the one or processors that a first portion of the environmental light corresponds to a first portion of the image light (Para. 0033-0035 and 0041-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controllable light-blocking element configured to communicate with one or more processors, the controllable light-blocking element configured to selectively block a first portion of the environmental light from reaching the eye based on a determination by the one or processors that a first portion of the environmental light corresponds to a first portion of the image light as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 2, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches, and Border teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make the wearable head device is configured to: based on a determination by the one or more processors that the first portion of the environmental light does not correspond to the first portion of the image light, forgoing blocking, via the controllable light-blocking element, the first portion of the environmental light from reaching the eye (Para. 0033-0035 and 0041-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device and method for the purpose of providing a wearable head device with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 3, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make determination that the first portion of the environmental light corresponds to the first portion of the image light comprises an identification of a low-contrast portion of the image light (Para. 0005 and 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device and method for the purpose of providing a wearable head device with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 4, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make the determination that the first portion of the environmental light corresponds to the first portion of the image light comprises an identification of a portion of the image light corresponding to an overlay element (Para. 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 5, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device and method (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make the combiner element and the controllable light-blocking element are oriented along a common axis (see Figs. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 6, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make the controllable light-blocking element comprises one or more of an electrochromic element, a polymer stabilized liquid crystal, and a ferroelectric liquid crystal (Para. 0008, 0044 and see 480, 580).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 8, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make the controllable light-blocking element is coupled to the combiner (see Figs. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 9, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make the combiner element comprises a partial mirror (440, 540) and the controllable light-blocking element is coupled to the partial mirror (see Figs. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 10, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make the controllable light-blocking element is coupled to a lower surface of the combiner (see Figs. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 11, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5) that it would have been desirable to make the controllable light-blocking element is configured to not interfere with the image light (see Figs. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 12, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the wearable head device further comprises an optics module housing, the optics module (805) housing comprising at least one of the image source, the lens, and the combiner element (Para. 0047 and see Fig. 8); and the combiner element is coupled to a surface of the optics module housing (Para. 0047 and see Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 13, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the surface of the optics module housing comprises a sidewall (Para. 0047 and see 885, 887).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 14, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the wearable head device further comprises a rear optical element (805); the rear optical element is coupled to the optics module housing (see Fig. 8); and the combiner element is configured to concurrently present the image light and the environmental light to the eye of the user via the rear optical element (Para. 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 15, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the rear optical element comprises a protective plate (805).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 16, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the rear optical element comprises a vision corrective optic (805).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 17, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the rear optical element is configured to limit contamination of a surface of the combiner (805).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 18, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the controllable light-blocking element comprises a switchable film (Para. 0033-0035 and 0040-0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 19, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the controllable light-blocking element comprises one or more of a switchable mirror and switchable glass (Para. 0033-0035 and 0040-0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Regarding claim 20, Garoutte in view of Border discloses and teaches as set forth above, Border further teaches, from the same of endeavor that in a wearable head device (Figs. 4-5 and 8) that it would have been desirable to make the controllable light-blocking element comprises a region having a selectable optical density (Para. 0033-0035 and 0040-0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the wearable head device of Border in the wearable head device and method of Garoutte since Border teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with high contrast and reduced eyeglow.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garoutte et al. (US 2006/0098293; already of record) in view of Border et al. (US 2012/0119978; already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luttman et al. (US 2015/0260992).
Garoutte in view of Border remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Garoutte in view of Border does not disclose a second controllable light-blocking element in communication with the one or more processors, wherein: the second controllable light-blocking element is configured to selectively block a second portion of the environmental light, and the method further comprises: concurrently with blocking, via the controllable light-blocking element, the first portion of the environmental light, forgoing blocking, via the second controllable light-blocking element, the second portion of the environmental light.
Luttman teaches, from the same field endeavor that in a wearable head device and method (Figs. 1-3) a second controllable light-blocking element in communication with the one or more processors, wherein: the second controllable light-blocking element (135, 300) is configured to selectively block a second portion of the environmental light (Para. 0023), and the method further comprises: concurrently with blocking, via the controllable light-blocking element, the first portion of the environmental light (Para. 0023), forgoing blocking, via the second controllable light-blocking element, the second portion of the environmental light (Para. 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second controllable light-blocking element in communication with the one or more processors, wherein: the second controllable light-blocking element is configured to selectively block a second portion of the environmental light, and the method further comprises: concurrently with blocking, via the controllable light-blocking element, the first portion of the environmental light, forgoing blocking, via the second controllable light-blocking element, the second portion of the environmental light as taught by the wearable head device and method of Luttman in the combination of Garoutte in view of Border since Luttman teaches it is known to include these features in a wearable head device and method for the purpose of providing a wearable head device and method with enhanced efficiency and field of view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 06/19/2026
Prosecution Insights