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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim 1:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 07/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s)
of claim(s) 1 under 103 over Chuang et al. in view of Abele et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ikeda et al. US 2014/0078023.
With respect to claim 18:
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-12 of the Remarks filed on 07/26/2026, applicant argues “Even if
the combination of Chuang and Abele were modified based on Sheena, the resulting combination would not include control circuitry that compares user information and lens information as recited in claim 18 as presently amended. Although Sheen does disclose alerting a user broadly based on a "mismatch", Sheena teaches scanning a barcode on a petri dish and comparing the information to a database (paragraph 45). There is no teaching in Sheena that "lens information" and "user information" are compared. Therefore, even if combined, Chuang, Abele, and Sheen fail to disclose control circuitry that compares user information and lens information as recited in amended claim 18. Additionally, one of ordinary skill would not modify the combination of Chuang and Abele based on Sheena. Chuang and Abele are related to head-mounted/wearable devices (see Abstracts of Chuang and Abele), while Sheena is related to a process for reducing mismatches in a lab setting (see Abstract and paragraph 45 of Sheena - specifically referencing an IVF lab needing to correlate a sample in a petri dish with the proper patient). There is no suggestion in Sheena that this lab-setting mismatch reduction mechanism is applicable to supplemental lenses in head-mounted devices, and one of ordinary skill would not have modified the combination of Chuang and Abele based on Sheena's disclosure.
For at least these reasons, claim 18 is patentable over Chuang, Abele, and Sheena.”.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagree, and the presented argument is not persuasive because Sheena is not relied upon to teach the removable supplemental lens, lens information, or user information. Those features are taught by Chuang and Abele. In particular, Chuang teaches the head-mounted device and removable corrective lens arrangement, and Abele teaches obtaining information/characteristics from a removable/interchangeable lens using lens-identification circuitry and memory associated with the lens. Sheena is relied upon for the known technique of comparing information associated with a physical item to expected/database information and displaying a warning when the information does not match. Sheena teaches that a barcode on a petri dish stores information identifying the individual associated with the specimen, the glasses read the barcode, the information is compared to a database, and the matching system alerts the user by projecting a warning onto the glasses if there is a mismatch. Sheena further teaches scanning the barcode so the matching system can make sure the correct specimen is being handled. (see para 0045). It would have been obvious to apply Sheena’s mismatch alert technique to the Chuang/Abele removable lens system so that the control circuitry compares lens information obtained from the removable supplemental lens with user information associated with the user and displays an alert when the information does not match. The motivation would have been to prevent use of an incorrect user-specific removable corrective/prescription lens and thereby reduce user error. Applicant further argues that Sheena is not combinable because it relates to a laboratory/IVF setting. This argument is not persuasive because Sheena is reasonably pertinent to the problem of preventing user error by verifying that the correct physical item is being used and warning the user when a mismatch is detected. Although Sheena verifies a petri dish/specimen rather than a removable lens, it teaches the same error prevention technique i.e., read information from a physical item, compare it with expected/database information, and display a warning if there is a mismatch. Applying that known technique to Chuang/Abele would have predictably improved the system by warning the user when the wrong prescription/removable supplemental lens is coupled.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “removably coupled to head-mounted support structure” should be “removably coupled to the head-support structure” and “wherein the displays is configured” should be “wherein the display is configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the display is configured to adjust displayed content in response to the removable supplemental lens being coupled to the head-mounted support structure.” However, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of a display that adjusts displayed content in response to coupling of the removable supplemental lens. The specification instead describes control circuitry 12 obtaining information from the removable supplemental lens system and applying corrections, geometric transformations, image warping or other video processing to content displayed on display 14. See e.g., Fig. 4 and paras. 0052. 0083. The display 14 is described as presenting/displaying content, NOT as adjusting the display content.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the display is configured to adjust displayed content” is unclear because the claim does not define how the display, as opposed to control circuitry or image-processing circuitry adjusts the displayed content. The specification describes control circuitry applying video processing, geometric transformations, image warping or compensating correction to content displayed on display 14. Thus, it is unclear whether the claim requires the display itself to perform the adjustment, whether control circuitry performs the adjustment, or whether the phrase merely means that adjusted content is displayed by the display. For examination purpose, examiner interprets “display configured to adjust displayed content” as “control circuitry configured to adjust displayed content”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. US 2019/0056590 in view of Abele et al. US 2019/0041644 and Ikeda et al. US 2014/0078023.
Regarding claim 1, Chuang teaches a system (see at least para 00014 and Fig. 1: HMD 100), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure (see Fig. 1 and para 0015: HMD 100 having a front rigid body 120 and head strap 130);
a lens module coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the lens module includes a display and a non-removable lens coupled to the head-mounted support structure (see para 0016: HMD 100 presents media such as image/video using electronic displays enclosed in the front region body 120, and see also Figs. 2, 3A and paras. 0018-0020: HMD 100 has eye cones 210, each including an optical lens 213); and
a removable supplemental lens removably coupled to head-mounted support structure (see at least Fig. 2, paras. 0003-0005, 0014, 0021 and 0028-0032: removable lens assemblies 110A/110B removably attached to the eye cones 210 of the HMD, and each removable lens assembly includes a corrective lens 410) between the non-removable lens and an eye box (see Fig. 2 and para 0031: “when the removable lens assembly 110 is attached on the corresponding eye cone 210 of the HMD 100, the corrective lens 410 is closer from the user's eye and the optical lens 213 of the eye cone 210 is further to the user's eye”, which it infers removable lens assembly is between user’s eye and optical lens 213).
Chuang fails to teach: wherein the removable supplemental lens is configured to store information including user information for a user associated with the removable supplemental lens and wherein the displays is configured to adjust displayed content in response to the removable supplemental lens being coupled to the head-mounted support structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Abele teaches removable supplemental lens (see para 0014 and 0021: teaches a first lens and second lens removably coupled to a frame; first pair of lenses 104 are removably coupled to or supported by frame 102 and may be interchangeable with a second pair of lenses 114) is configured to store information including user information (para 0057, 0066: teaches identifier 802 is formed with lens 806 that can be removably coupled to frame 808, and identifier 802 includes memory component 812, such as EEPROM, and the input code representing information or characteristics of the lens 806 may be stored in the memory component 812) for a user associated with the removable supplemental lens (see para 0011 and 0014: teaches corrective lens for prescription helping a user see clearly). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the removable corrective lens assembly of Chuang to include stored information to enable HDM to automatically identify the installed removable corrective lens, obtain lens prescription information, reduce manual entry error, and adjust display parameters based on the installed lens.
The combination of Chuang and Abele fails to teach: wherein the displays is configured to adjust displayed content in response to the removable supplemental lens being coupled to the head-mounted support structure.
Ikeda teaches a head mounted display/image processing device including a display unit, an eyepiece optical unit, a correction information retaining unit, and a distortion correction unit that corrects distortion of the display image based on correction information according to a current state of the user (see para 0016), and Ikeda further teaches that the correction information include correction vectors for correcting distortion caused by a shift between the lens center of the eyepiece optical unit and the center positions of the user’s eye, and also correction vectors for correcting distortion/aberration caused by glasses worn by the user (see paras. 0017, 0019, 0055, 0061-0064, 0075). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the removable corrective lens assembly of Chuang in view of Abele to include stored lens/user information so that the HMD automatically identifies the installed lens and obtain the corresponding lens/prescription information, and further been obvious to use Ikeda’s image-processing/distortion correction technique to adjust the image content displayed through the lens system. The motivation would have been to compensate for distortion or aberration caused by the installed corrective lens and thereby present a corrected image to the user.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 1, and Abele further teaches further comprising a data reading device coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the data reading device is configured to obtain the user information from the removable supplemental lens (para [0057]: teaches a reader 804 having a memory reader 814 for reading the stored information in the lens 806 memory 812).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 4, and Chuang further teaches wherein the information further comprises an eyeglasses prescription (see para 0004).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 4, and Abele further teaches wherein the removable supplemental lens includes memory and wherein the data reading device is configured to obtain the user information from the memory (para [0057]: teaches a reader 804 having a memory reader 814 for reading the stored information in the lens 806 memory 812).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 4, and Abele further teaches wherein the removable supplemental lens includes circuitry (Fig. 8 and para [0057]: teaches EEPROM type memory, which is electrically erasable programmable i.e., memory erase circuit, and para [0058]: further teaches memory component 812 within the lens 806 is flex printed circuit board (FPCB)) configured to store data and wherein the data reading device is configured to obtain the user information from the circuitry (para [0057]: teaches a reader 804 having a memory reader 814 for reading the stored information in the lens 806 memory 812).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 4, and Abele further teaches wherein the removable supplemental lens includes programmable read only memory (Fig. 8 and para [0057]: teaches EEPROM type memory, which is electrically erasable programmable), wherein the data reading device is configured to obtain the user information from the programmable read only memory, and wherein the information further comprises a lens characteristic of the removable supplemental lens ((para [0057]: teaches a reader 804 having a memory reader 814 for reading the stored information (lens characteristics) in the lens 806 memory 812)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 9, and Chuang further teaches wherein the lens characteristic comprises a lens power associated with the removable supplemental lens (para 0028: teaches corrective lens 410 is prescribed by an ophthalmologist or optometrist and has a power determined by the ophthalmologist or optometrist).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 1, and Abele teaches further comprising: control circuitry (see Fig. 13para 0068-0075: teaches lens identification system 140 including decoder 1302, lens type retriever 1304, lens characteristic identifier 1306, setting adjustor 1308, database 1310, power manager 1312, usage monitor 1314, output device interface 1316. See para 0077-0078: Abele also teaches that process of Fig. 14 implemented by code/machine-readable instructions executed by processor circuitry) configured to obtain the user information (para 0079-0082: teaches that decoder 1302 receives an input code from reader 146, lens type retriever 1304 retrieves or obtains lens type based on the decoded input code, and lens characteristic identifier 1306 determines one or more characteristics of the lens. Para 0082: expressly states that the identified optical characteristics may include a prescription of the first lens 106) when the removable supplemental lens is coupled to the head-mounted support structure, wherein the user information comprises information selected from the group consisting of a username, a prescription of the user, and preferences (Para 0082: expressly states that the identified optical characteristics may include a prescription of the first lens 106).
Claims 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Abele and Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raffle et al. US 2017/0031435.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chaung teaches the system of claim 1, except for wherein the removable supplemental lens has a bar code that stores the user information, wherein the bar code is opaque at infrared wavelengths and transparent at visible wavelengths, the system further comprising: an image sensor configured to read the bar code while the removable supplemental lens is removably coupled to the head-mounted support structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Raffle teaches a wearable eye tracking system in HMD (at least in title and para [0027]), comprising a light emitter and infrared image sensor (para [0007), wherein the lens has a bar code that stores information (para [0030] and para [0089]), wherein the bar code is opaque at infrared wavelengths (para [0080]) and transparent at visible wavelengths (para [0088]), and wherein the image sensor is configured to read the bar code while the removable supplemental lens is removably coupled to the head-mounted support structure (para [0007] and para [0029-0030]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined optical apparatus of Chuang and Abele by utilizing the claimed gaze-tracking system having IR image sensor in order to identify the particular lenses that is attached to the HMD.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 2, and Raffle further teaches wherein the bar code comprises infrared-opaque-and-visible-light-transparent ink on a clear lens element in the removable supplemental lens (see para 0088) and wherein the information further comprises information selected from the group consisting of: an eyeglass prescription, an eyeglass prescription date of expiration, a username, a manufacturing date, a manufacturer, a serial number, a manufacturing lot number, a model name, a model type, and optical characteristics of the removable supplemental lens (para [0053 and 0056]: teaches different lens characteristics, and para [0013]: teaches serial number of the lens among the different characteristic of the lens).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Abele and Ikeda as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kingsbury et al. US 2018/0053050.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chuang teaches the system of claim 4, except for wherein the removable supplemental lens comprises text and wherein the data reading device is configured to obtain the user information by optically reading the text.
Kingsbury teaches, code of information on the lens presented in a variety of readable formats such as plain text or machine-readable values such as QR codes or bar codes, and wherein data reading device configured to obtains the information of the lens by reading the values of the QR codes or bar codes (para [0016] and paras [0035-0039]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical apparatus of Chuang and Abele by utilizing the claimed text code information as taught by Kingsbury in order to provide biometric identification of individual using the lens.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Abele and Ikeda as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Blum et al. US 2012/0008094.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chuang and Abele teaches the system of claim 9, except for wherein the lens characteristic comprises an aspherical lens power associated with the removable supplemental lens.
Blum teaches an ophthalmic lens in which a variable power field may create an aspherical peripheral power effect to reduce distortion and aberrations, and further teaches that needed power correction may include aspheric power (see para 0133). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the lens power characteristics of Chuang’s removable corrective lens, as identified/stored in Abele, to include aspheric/aspherical power as taught by Blum, in order to reduce distortion and aberrations and provide improved ophthalmic correction.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Abele and Ikeda as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sugimori US 2010/0103284.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chuang and Abele teaches the system defined in claim 9, except for wherein the lens characteristic comprises an optical aberration associated with the removable supplemental lens.
Sugimori, teaches an imaging system, wherein is data acquired from the attached lens unit with the imaging system (para [0042]), and the imaging system further comprises lens unit correction information (para [0042]), and stored information/characteristics of the lens is aberration (para [0042]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined optical apparatus of Chuang and Abele by utilizing storing lens characteristics such as aberration as taught by Sugimori in order to process correction of the lens such as aberration based on the user’s preferences.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. US 2019/0056590 in view of Abele et al. US 2019/0041644 and Sheena US 2018/0256304.
Regarding claim 18, an electronic device (see Fig. 1: HMD 100), comprising:
a display that displays content (see para 0016: HMD 100 presents media such as images, video, and the images and video can be presented to each eye using electronic displays enclosed in front rigid body 120);
a non-removable lens configured to allow the display content to be viewed from an eye box (see Figs. 2, 3A and paras. 0018-0020: HMD 100 has eye cones 210, each including an optical lens 213);
a removable supplemental lens configured to be coupled between the non-removable lens and the eye box (see Fig. 2 and para 0031: “when the removable lens assembly 110 is attached on the corresponding eye cone 210 of the HMD 100, the corrective lens 410 is closer from the user's eye and the optical lens 213 of the eye cone 210 is further to the user's eye”, which it infers removable lens assembly is between user’s eye and optical lens 213); and
support structures (see Fig. 1 and para 0015: HMD 100 having a front rigid body 120 and head strap 130) that support the display (eye code 210), the non-removable lens (213), and the removable supplemental lens (110).
Chuang fails to teach: control circuitry; and wherein the removable supplemental lens is configured to store information that includes user information and lens information, and
wherein the control circuitry is configured to obtain the information from the removable supplemental lens, the control circuitry is configured to compare the user information and the lens information, and the display is configured to display an alert if the user information does not match the lens information.
In the same field of endeavor, Abele teaches control circuitry (see Fig. 13para 0068-0075: teaches lens identification system 140 including decoder 1302, lens type retriever 1304, lens characteristic identifier 1306, setting adjustor 1308, database 1310, power manager 1312, usage monitor 1314, output device interface 1316. See para 0077-0078: Abele also teaches that process of Fig. 14 implemented by code/machine-readable instructions executed by processor circuitry); and wherein the removable supplemental lens (see para 0014 and 0021: teaches a first lens and second lens removably coupled to a frame; first pair of lenses 104 are removably coupled to or supported by frame 102 and may be interchangeable with a second pair of lenses 114) is configured to store information that includes user information (para 0057, 0066: teaches identifier 802 is formed with lens 806 that can be removably coupled to frame 808, and identifier 802 includes memory component 812, such as EEPROM, and the input code representing information or characteristics of the lens 806 may be stored in the memory component 812), and lens information (Para 0082: expressly states that the identified optical characteristics may include a prescription of the first lens 106, (Fig. 8 and para [0057]: teaches lens 806 having a memory 812 storing information or characteristic of the lens 806))and
wherein the control circuitry is configured to obtain the information from the removable supplemental lens (see para 0011 and 0014: teaches corrective lens for prescription helping a user see clearly). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the removable corrective lens assembly of Chuang to include stored information to enable HDM to automatically identify the installed removable corrective lens, obtain lens prescription information, reduce manual entry error, and adjust display parameters based on the installed lens.
The combination of Chuang and Abele fails to teach: wherein the control circuitry is configured to compare the user information and the lens information, and the display is configured to display an alert if the user information does not match the lens information.
However, Sheena teaches a system that is configured to issue an alert to a user in response to determining there is mismatch (para [0045]). Examiner, learns such systems are well known interface options with the technology available before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical apparatus of Chuang and Abele by utilizing the claimed alert system based on the mismatch as taught by Sheena in order to inform the user to make sure correct prescription of the lens is used.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. US 2019/0056590 in view of Abele et al. US 2019/0041644 and Hikosaka et al. US 2021/0041723.
Regarding claim 14, Chuang teaches a head-mounted device (see at least para 00014 and Fig. 1: HMD 100), comprising: head-mounted support structures (see Fig. 1 and para 0015: HMD 100 having a front rigid body 120 and head strap 130);
a display configured to display content (see para 0016: HMD 100 presents media such as images, video, and the images and video can be presented to each eye using electronic displays enclosed in front rigid body 120);
a non-removable lens coupled between the display and an eye box (see Figs. 2, 3A and paras. 0018-0020: HMD 100 has eye cones 210, each including an optical lens 213);
a removable lens removably coupled to the head-mounted support structures (see at least Fig. 2, paras. 0003-0005, 0014, 0021 and 0028-0032: removable lens assemblies 110A/110B removably attached to the eye cones 210 of the HMD, and each removable lens assembly includes a corrective lens 410) in alignment with the non-removable lens (see Fig. 2 and para 0031: “when the removable lens assembly 110 is attached on the corresponding eye cone 210 of the HMD 100, the corrective lens 410 is closer from the user's eye and the optical lens 213 of the eye cone 210 is further to the user's eye”).
Chuang fails to teach control circuitry configured to obtain information stored in the removable lens, wherein the information comprises lens information and user information and a positioner in the head-mounted support structures configured to adjust a position of the non-removable lens and the removable lens in response to the removable lens being coupled to the head-mounted support structures.
In the same field of endeavor, Abele teaches control circuitry (see Fig. 13para 0068-0075: teaches lens identification system 140 including decoder 1302, lens type retriever 1304, lens characteristic identifier 1306, setting adjustor 1308, database 1310, power manager 1312, usage monitor 1314, output device interface 1316. See para 0077-0078: Abele also teaches that process of Fig. 14 implemented by code/machine-readable instructions executed by processor circuitry) configured to obtain information stored in the removable lens (para 0079-0082: teaches that decoder 1302 receives an input code from reader 146, lens type retriever 1304 retrieves or obtains lens type based on the decoded input code, and lens characteristic identifier 1306 determines one or more characteristics of the lens. Para 0082: expressly states that the identified optical characteristics may include a prescription of the first lens 106), wherein the information comprises lens information and user information (Para 0082: expressly states that the identified optical characteristics may include a prescription of the first lens 106, (Fig. 8 and para [0057]: teaches lens 806 having a memory 812 storing information or characteristic of the lens 806)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical device of Chuang by utilizing the claimed removable lens storing lens information as taught by Abele in order to in order to process correction of the lens based on the stored lens characteristics/information as required to the user’s preferences.
The combination of Chuang and Abele fail to teach wherein the information comprises lens information and user information and a positioner in the head-mounted support structures configured to adjust a position of the non-removable lens and the removable lens in response to the removable lens being coupled to the head-mounted support structures.
Hikosaka teaches an eyewear system having a first lens and a second/removable lens, and a position adjuster configured to adjust the position of one lens relative to the other after attachment. Hikosaka teaches lens holder 200 with position adjuster 220 for adjusting the position of removable lens unit 300 relative to electronic glasses 100 and also teaches position adjuster 490 for adjusting electronic lens 450 relative to lens 503 in the front-back, left-right and up-down directions (see paras. 0074-0076, 0092-0098, 130-0131, 0135-0148). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chuang and Abele HMD to include Hikosaka’s lens-position adjusting structure so that, after the removable corrective lens is coupled to the HMD, the position of the removable lens relative to the main/non-removable lens can be adjusted for proper viewing. The motivation would have been to improve optical alignment, field of view, and viewing comfort when different user-specific corrective lenses are installed.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chuang teaches the head-mounted device of claim 14, and Abele further teaches wherein the lens information comprises a prescription of the removable lens, and the user information comprises a user's prescription (Para 0082: expressly states that the identified optical characteristics may include a prescription of the first lens 106).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Abele and Hikosaka as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sheena US 2018/0256304.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chuang teaches the head-mounted device of claim 15, except for wherein the display is configured to display an alert if the prescription of the removable lens does not match the user's prescription.
However, Sheena teaches a system that is configured to issue an alert to a user in response to determining there is mismatch (para [0045]). Examiner, learns such systems are well known interface options with the technology available before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical apparatus of Chuang and Abele by utilizing the claimed alert system based on the mismatch as taught by Sheena in order to inform the user to make sure correct prescription of the lens is used.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Abele and Hikosaka as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zewe US 2018/0129075.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chuang teaches the head-mounted device of claim 14, except for wherein the removable lens is configured to be magnetically attached to the head-mounted support structures.
Zewe teaches a supplemental lens that removably attached into a frame is attached magnetically (see Fig. 1 and para 0074: supplemental lens 14 is magnetically attached into a frame 20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination head-mounted device of Chuang and Adele by utilizing the claimed magnetic attachment as taught by Zewe because magnetic system allows users to quickly attach or detach the auxiliary/supplemental lens from the primary lens, and this eliminates the need for complicated mechanisms or tools, making it convenient for users to switch lenses easily.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights