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
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 with respect to claims 1-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 the applicant argues that neither Yamasaki nor Tsuyuki shows or suggests the claims as amended. Specifically, the applicant argues that Tsuyuki shows physically moving the display unit, and thus does not disclose displacing an image frame as recited in amended claim 1. The Office respectfully disagrees. While the differences between the applicant’s invention and the prior art are appreciated, the claims do not define over the references. Specifically, as admitted by applicant, Tsuyuki shows physically moving the display unit. Since the “image frame” is displayed by the display units, then moving the display units in Tsuyuki will result in moving the image frames in the combination. The claims do not recite how the image frames are moved, and thus, the references still teach the claims as amended.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Since claims 2-10 are not argued and depend from claim 1, the rejections of claim 2-10 are also maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 of the response, filed 18 March 2026, with respect to the amendment to claims 16-20 in view of the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 16-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the optical subassembly is configured displace the image frames…” which should be changed to “wherein the optical subassembly is configured to displace the image frames…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2006/0017657) in view of Tsuyuki et al. (US 2006/0072206).
Regarding claim 1, Yamasaki discloses a system (Figure 1), comprising:
a computer (Figure 1, 3 is a computer and Figure 12); and
a head-mounted device (Figure 1, 2 is a head-mounted device and Figure 13), comprising:
a frame coupled to first and second eyeglass temples (Figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0045]-[0046].); and
an optical subassembly in the frame that comprises at least one lens that is configured to present image frames for an eye (Figures 13 and 15, 108 is an optical subassembly that comprises at least one lens 103, see paragraph [0113].).
Yamasaki fails to teach wherein the optical subassembly is configured displace the image frames based on an interpupillary distance.
Tsuyuki et al. disclose a system comprising:
a head-mounted device (Figure 6, 60) comprising:
an optical subassembly in the frame (Figure 6, 13L and 13R), wherein the optical subassembly is configured displace the image devices based on an interpupillary distance (Figures 7-8 and paragraphs [0071]-[0073].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art at the time the invention was made to use the interpupillary distance adjustment taught by Tsuyuki et al. in the system taught by Yamasaki such that by moving the image devices the displayed image frames would also be moved. The motivation to combine would have been in order to allow for images free from a sense of incongruity to be observed (See paragraph [0083] of Tsuyuki et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the computer comprises buttons (Yamasaki: Figure 12, buttons 72 and 73 and paragraphs [0109]-[0110].), and the optical subassembly is configured to be adjusted in response to inputs from the buttons (Yamasaki: Figures 20-21 and paragraphs [0210]-[0215].).
Regarding claim 4, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the computer comprises a touch pad (Yamasaki: Figure 10, touch pad 46 and paragraph [0066].), and the optical subassembly is configured to be adjusted in response to additional inputs from the touch pad (Yamasaki: Paragraph [0211].).
Regarding claim 5, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the computer further comprises:
a display configured to display additional images (Yamasaki: Figure 11, display 51 and paragraph [0059].).
Regarding claim 6, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the optical subassembly is configured to adjust the image frames to occupy a viewing region that is smaller than a field of view of a user (Yamasaki: Figure 21).
Regarding claim 7, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the optical subassembly is a right optical module that is configured to present right images for a right eye (Yamasaki: Figure 2, right optical module 15 and Figure 13), and the head-mounted device further comprises:
a left optical module that is configured to present left images for a left eye (Yamasaki: Figure 2, left optical module 14 and Figure 13.).
Regarding claim 9, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the head-mounted device further comprises:
first and second speakers respectively coupled to the first and second eyeglass temples (Yamasaki: Figure 2, speakers 22 and paragraph [0049], last sentence.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2006/0017657) in view of Tsuyuki et al. (US 2006/0072206) and further in view of Zou et al. (US 6,760,772).
Regarding claim 2, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 1.
Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. fail to teach the system further comprising:
a wired connection between the computer and the head-mounted device, wherein the optical subassembly is configured to be adjusted in response to signals from the computer received over the wired connection.
Zou et al. disclose a system comprising:
a wired connection between a computer and a head-mounted device, wherein the adjustable optical module is configured to display the images in response to the signals from the computer received over the wired connection (Figures 1A-1B show a wired connection between a computer 100/102 and a head-mounted device 104/106. See also column 10, lines 1-36.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wired connection teachings of Zou et al. and apply them to the system taught by the combination of Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. such that a wired connection is used between the computer and the head-mounted device. The motivation to combine would have been in order to provide a more reliable connection as compared to using wireless signals, and further providing a very high data transfer rate using low power signals (See column 9, lines 60-67 of Zou et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2006/0017657) in view of Tsuyuki et al. (US 2006/0072206) and further in view of Riechel (US 2009/0128448).
Regarding claim 8, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 1.
Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. fail to teach the system further comprising:
a detector configured to determine that the head-mounted device and the computer are mounted together.
Riechel discloses a system comprising a detector configured to determine that a head-mounted device and a computer are mounted together (Paragraph [0025], the I/O 215 recognizes [detects] the reception of the jack to determine that 100 and a computer 200. See also Figure 4.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. perform the same function as it does separately of providing connection between a computer and a head-mounted device, and Riechel performs the same function as it does separately of providing detection of a connection of a computer and a head-mounted device.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in a detector configured to determine that the head-mounted device and the computer are mounted together.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2006/0017657) in view of Tsuyuki et al. (US 2006/0072206) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2006/0221059).
Regarding claim 10, Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the computer comprises a display (Figure 11, display 51).
Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the computer comprises a camera.
Choi et al. disclose wherein a computer comprises a camera (Figures 10A-10E and paragraphs [0046] and [0071].
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Yamasaki and Tsuyuki et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a computer [portable device], and Choi et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a computer [portable device] comprising a camera.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the computer comprising a display and a camera.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2006/0017657) in view of Ritter et al. (US 2007/0052672).
Regarding claim 11, Yamasaki discloses a head-mounted device comprising:
a frame including first and second temples (Figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0045]-[0046].);
a left adjustable optical module subassembly in the frame that comprises at least one left lens that is configured to present a left image for a left eye (Yamasaki: Figure 2, and Figures 13, 108, and Figure 15 and paragraph [0185]: one for each eye, thus there is a left adjustable optical module subassembly.);
a right adjustable optical module subassembly in the frame that comprises at least one right lens that is configured to present a right image for a right eye (Yamasaki: Figure 2, and Figures 13, 108, and Figure 15 and paragraph [0185]: one for each eye, thus there is a right adjustable optical module subassembly.); and
a touch sensor, wherein the left optical subassembly and the right optical subassembly are configured to be adjusted in response to input to the touch sensor (Yamasaki: Figure 12, 72 and 73, and paragraphs [0109]-[0110] and Figure 10, and Figures 20-21 and paragraphs [0210]-[0215].).
Yamasaki fails to teach that the touch sensor is on the first temple, and the input to the touch sensor is a sliding input.
Ritter et al. discloses a head-mounted device comprising a frame including first and second temples (Figure 1, glasses/VRD 1, which as first and second temples) and a touch sensor is on the first temple (Figure 1, touch sensor 12 is on the first temple.), wherein input to the touch sensor can be a sliding input (Paragraph [0048], for example, states “The fast swipe (gesture) is a fast finger move over the fingerprint sensor 12, which starts the function of the entire system and displays a service menu…” See also paragraphs [0035]-[0038].).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Yamasaki performs the same function as it does separately of providing adjustment to the left and right optical subassemblies in response to input to the touch sensor, and Ritter et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a touch sensor is on the first temple and providing for a sliding input.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the touch sensor being on the first temple and the adjustment being made “in response to” a sliding input.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 12, Yamasaki and Ritter et al. disclose the head-mounted device of claim 11, wherein the left and right adjustable optical modules are configured to allow a user to see an external surrounding in addition to the left and right images (Yamasaki: Paragraphs [0039] and [0044], transparent, i.e. the user can see an external surrounding in addition to the left and right images.).
Regarding claim 13, Yamasaki and Ritter et al. disclose the head-mounted device of claim 11, further comprising:
first and second speakers coupled to the frame (Yamasaki: Figure 2, speakers 22 and paragraph [0049], last sentence.).
Regarding claim 14, Yamasaki and Ritter et al. disclose the head-mounted device of claim 11, further comprising:
a wired connection that is configured to receive signals from an external device (Ritter et al.: Figure 1 and paragraph [0059]: “In a variant embodiment there could be a contact based interface (such as a wire) and the VRD is connected over that interface to the external device 9 or the mobile phone 2.”).
Regarding claim 15, Yamasaki and Ou disclose the head-mounted device of claim 11, further comprising:
wireless communication interface (Yamasaki: Figure 13, 111 is a wireless communication interface. See paragraph [0119].).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is that claim 16 as amended recites “wherein the optical subassembly is configured to be switched between presenting the virtual images and displaying the external images in response to head movement command measurements of the accelerometer while the images are being presented for the eye” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The closest prior art (Yamasaki (US 2006/0017657); Mullen (US 2006/0061555); Zou et al. (US 6,760,772); Tsuyuki et al. (US 2006/0072206); Ou (US 2006/0052146); Riechel (US 2009/0128448); Choi et al. (US 2006/0221059); Ritter et al. (US 2007/0052672)) discloses a head-mounted device comprising an accelerometer, wherein the accelerometer can be used to control the device (See pages 11-12 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 18 December 2025.).
However, the closest prior art fails to explicitly teach and/or suggest of switching between the virtual images and the external images in response to head movement command measurements of the accelerometer as specifically claimed and highlighted above (See also the applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 of the response filed 18 March 2026.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
7 April 2026