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 .
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-3, 7-12, 16 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 2-3, 16 and 20, the applicant claims adjusting an “intraocular distance”, but the descriptions in the specification and claim describe an interpupillary distance. In optics, the term “intraocular” refers to anything inside the eye. If the applicant wishes to use the term “intraocular” then it must be clearly defined in the specification. In this case, the applicant has not provided a clear, concise and exact definition of the term.
For the purposes of this action the office will interpret the term to be an interpupillary distance.
Regarding claims 7-12, in claim 7 the applicant claims wherein each respective ring has a circumferential gap. It is unclear what this circumferential gap is describing. One of ordinary skill may believe the applicant is describing a plurality of IR emitters that form, over one eye, a first and second ring and the circumferential gap is the distance between those two rings. Or, they may consider the first and second rings to be a ring over a first eye and a ring over a second eye and the circumferential gap is the distance between them (similar to an interpupillary distance). In any case there is no way to know how the angle is being measured in claim 8. Claims 9-12 depend on claim 8.
For the purposes of this action the office will interpret the claim such that there are a pair of rings and there is a gap between them. For the purposes of claim 8, the office will interpret the claim such that an angle may be measured from one portion of the ring to another that is 30-50 degrees with respect to an axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sahlsten et al. (PGPUB 20200241298).
Regarding claim 1, Sahlsten discloses an optical system comprising:
a headset frame configured to be worn on the face of a user ([0062]), the headset frame having a front and a back, the back adjacent a face of the user when the headset frame is worn ([0164] not labeled, but it is inherent that the headset has a front and back);
first and second optical assemblies ([0056]), each respective optical assembly comprising:
an eyepiece having an eyepiece optical axis and a front ([0056]);
an IR illuminator configured to emit IR light towards the eye of the user looking into the eyepiece, wherein IR light will reflect off of the eye and into the eyepiece (214);
a beamsplitter positioned along the eyepiece optical axis (208, [0087]) and having an eye tracking channel and a display channel in optical communication therewith (Fig. 2);
the eye tracking channel having an eye tracking optical axis and comprising an infrared (IR) imager and a camera lens configured to focus IR light from the eyepiece onto an imaging plane of the imager ([0124]-[0127]);
the display channel having a display channel optical axis and comprising an electronic display (204/206) and adjustable display optics configured to relay an image output on the display for viewing through the eyepiece by a user looking through the eyepiece ([0122]);
wherein one of the eye tracking optical axis and the display channel optical axis is substantially collinear with the eyepiece optical axis (Fig. 2);
the first optical assembly and second optical assembly mounted to the headset frame so that when the user is wearing the headset frame the front of the eyepiece in the first optical assembly is generally aligned with a first eye of the user and the front of the eyepiece in the second optical assembly is generally aligned with a second eye of the user ([0056] where each eye uses an optical assembly and must inherently be aligned with each eye in order to be functional).
Regarding claim 2, Sahlsten discloses wherein a distance between the first optical assembly and the second optical assembly is adjustable along an adjustment axis to thereby allow adjustment of an intraocular distance between the front of the eyepiece of first optical assembly and the front of the eyepiece of the second optical assembly ([0122]).
Regarding claim 4, Sahlsten discloses each of the eyepiece optical axis of the first optical assembly and the eyepiece optical axis of the second optical assembly having an angle relative to the adjustment axis of between substantially 0.5 and substantially 5 degrees ([0122] and “substantially” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation such it includes a range of -0.5 to 6 degrees).
Regarding claim 5, Sahlsten discloses wherein each of the eyepiece optical axis of the first optical assembly and the eyepiece optical axis of the second optical assembly is angled at substantially 1 degree relative to the adjustment axis ([0122] and “substantially” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation such it includes a range of 0 to 2 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, Sahlsten discloses wherein the IR illuminator of each respective optical assembly comprises a respective ring of IR emitters at the front of the respective eyepiece ([0128]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Sahlsten discloses wherein each respective ring has a circumferential gap, the gap in the ring in the first optical assembly and the gap in the ring in the second optical assembly opposed to each other ([0130]-[0131]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Sahlsten discloses wherein the adjustable display optics in each respective optical assembly comprises a respective liquid lens with an electronically controlled spherical diopter power and a respective display lens assembly ([0130]-[0131] where a ring of emitters over each eye would allow for angles from approximately 0 degrees to 70 degrees).
Regarding claim 14, Sahlsten discloses wherein for each respective optical assembly:
the respective eye tracking optical axis is substantially collinear with the respective eyepiece optical axis; the respective beam splitter is configured to pass IR light from the respective eyepiece into the respective eye tracking channel and reflect visible light from the respective display channel towards the respective eyepiece (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Sahlsten discloses wherein for each respective optical assembly the respective display channel optical axis is substantially normal to the respective eyepiece optical axis (Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salhsten in view of Johnson et al. (USPAT 5954642).
Regarding claim 3, Sahlsten discloses a motor driven modification of an interpupillary distance ([0122]), but does not disclose further comprising; a faceplate; a rotatable shaft coupled to the faceplate and having first and second threaded portions therein, a thread direction of the first threaded portion being opposite a thread direction of the second threaded portion; the first optical assembly having a first threaded nut portion engaged with the first threaded portion of the shaft; the second optical assembly having a second threaded nut portion engaged with the second threaded portion of the shaft; and a motor coupled to the shaft; wherein rotation of the shaft changes the intraocular distance.
However, Johnson teaches a head mounted display comprising a faceplate (224); a rotatable shaft coupled to the faceplate and having first and second threaded portions therein (242), a thread direction of the first threaded portion being opposite a thread direction of the second threaded portion (Col. 11 lines 31-56); the first optical assembly having a first threaded nut portion engaged with the first threaded portion of the shaft (Col. 11 lines 31-56); the second optical assembly having a second threaded nut portion engaged with the second threaded portion of the shaft (Col. 11 lines 31-56); and wherein rotation of the shaft changes the intraocular distance (Col. 11 lines 31-56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Salhsten and Johnson such that the interpupillary distance modification was achieved via a threaded rod motivated by providing accurate optic positioning.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salhsten in view of Johnson and further in view of Pedder et al. (PGPUB 20200096770).
Regarding claim 9, modified Salhsten does not disclose wherein the adjustable display optics in each respective optical assembly comprises a respective liquid lens with an electronically controlled spherical diopter power and a respective display lens assembly.
However, Pedder teaches a head mounted electronic device comprising adjustable display optics in each respective optical assembly comprises a respective liquid lens with an electronically controlled spherical diopter power and a respective display lens assembly ([0035] and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Salhsten and Pedder such that the head mounted display included a tunable liquid lens motivated by improving user vision quality.
Regarding claim 10, modified Salhsten discloses the adjustable display optics in each respective optical assembly further comprising a respective adjustable diaphragm between the liquid lens and the respective display lens assembly (114 of Pedder).
Regarding claim 11, modified Salhsten discloses wherein the spherical diopter of the liquid lens in each respective optical assembly is adjustable from between substantially -10 to substantially +10 ([0074] of Pedder).
Regarding claim 12, modified Salhsten discloses wherein the liquid lens in each respective optical assembly further has an electronically controlled cylindrical diopter power ([0116] of Pedder).
Claim(s) 13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salhsten in view of Chan et al. (PGPUB 20200225477).
Regarding claim 13, Salhsten does not disclose wherein the first optical assembly and the second optical assembly are inside a common housing that is removably coupled to the headset frame.
However, Chan teaches a head mounted display wherein the optical components are removable ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Salhsten and Chan such that the optical structures were removable motivated by improving ease of repair.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Sahlsten discloses an optical system attachable to a headset frame configured to be worn on the face of a user, the optical system comprising;
a housing ([0056] “…separate optical chambers for a left eye and a right eye of the user are formed in the display apparatus.”);
first and second optical assemblies ([0056]) within the housing, each respective optical assembly comprising:
an eyepiece having an eyepiece optical axis and a front ([0056], Fig. 2);
an infrared (IR) illuminator at the front of the eyepiece and configured to emit IR light outwards from the eyepiece (214), wherein when a user is looking into the eyepiece with an eye, emitted IR light will reflect off of the eye and into the eyepiece (Fig. 2);
a beamsplitter positioned along the eyepiece optical axis and having a front facing the eyepiece and a back (208, [0087]);
an eye tracking channel and having an eye tracking optical axis substantially coaxial with the eyepiece optical channel and comprising an IR imager and a camera lens configured to focus IR light passing from the eyepiece and through the beamsplitter onto an imaging plane of the imager (Fig. 2); and
a display channel having a display channel optical axis intersecting the beamsplitter and substantially normal to the eyepiece optical axis and comprising an electronic display and adjustable display optics ([0059]) configured to relay an image output on the display for viewing through the eyepiece by the user looking into the eyepiece (Fig. 2 and [0056]);
the first and second optical assemblies movably mounted relative to each other within the housing along an adjustment axis to thereby allow adjustment of an intraocular distance between the front of the eyepiece of first optical assembly and the front of the eyepiece of the second optical assembly ([0059]);
wherein when the housing is mounted to the headset frame and the user is wearing the headset frame a position of the front of the eyepiece in the first optical assembly relative to the headset frame and a position of the front of the eyepiece in the second optical assembly relative to the headset frame is adjustable so as to align the front of the eyepiece in the first optical assembly with a first eye of the user and to align the front of the eyepiece in the second optical assembly with a second eye of the user and wherein the user can see images output on the respective electronic displays in the first and second optical assemblies and the first and second eyes of the user can be imaged by the respective IR imager in the first and second optical assemblies ([0056]-[0059]).
Salhsten does not disclose the housing configured to be removably mounted to the headset frame.
However, Chan teaches a head mounted display wherein the optical components are removable ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Salhsten and Chan such that the optical structures were removable motivated by improving ease of repair.
Regarding claim 17, Sahlsten discloses each of the eyepiece optical axis of the first optical assembly and the eyepiece optical axis of the second optical assembly having an angle relative to the adjustment axis of substantially 1 degree ([0122] and “substantially” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation such it includes a range of 0 to 2 degrees).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Sahlsten discloses wherein each respective ring has a circumferential gap, the gap in the ring in the first optical assembly and the gap in the ring in the second optical assembly opposed to each other ([0130]-[0131]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salhsten in view of Chan and further in view of Pedder.
Regarding claim 19, modified Salhsten does not disclose wherein the adjustable display optics in each respective optical assembly comprising:a respective liquid lens with an electronically controlled spherical diopter power; a respective display lens assembly; and a respective adjustable diaphragm between the liquid lens and the respective display lens assembly ([0035] and [0070]).
However, Pedder teaches a head mounted electronic device comprising a respective liquid lens with an electronically controlled spherical diopter power; a respective display lens assembly; and
a respective adjustable diaphragm between the liquid lens and the respective display lens assembly (114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Salhsten and Pedder such that the head mounted display included a tunable liquid lens and diaphragm motivated by improving user vision quality.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salhsten in view of Chan and further in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 20, Sahlsten discloses a motor driven modification of an interpupillary distance ([0122]), but does not disclose further comprising; a faceplate; a rotatable shaft coupled to the faceplate and having first and second threaded portions therein, a thread direction of the first threaded portion being opposite a thread direction of the second threaded portion; the first optical assembly having a first threaded nut portion engaged with the first threaded portion of the shaft; the second optical assembly having a second threaded nut portion engaged with the second threaded portion of the shaft; and a motor coupled to the shaft; wherein rotation of the shaft changes the intraocular distance.
However, Johnson teaches a head mounted display comprising a faceplate (224); a rotatable shaft coupled to the faceplate and having first and second threaded portions therein (242), a thread direction of the first threaded portion being opposite a thread direction of the second threaded portion (Col. 11 lines 31-56); the first optical assembly having a first threaded nut portion engaged with the first threaded portion of the shaft (Col. 11 lines 31-56); the second optical assembly having a second threaded nut portion engaged with the second threaded portion of the shaft (Col. 11 lines 31-56); and wherein rotation of the shaft changes the intraocular distance (Col. 11 lines 31-56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Salhsten and Johnson such that the interpupillary distance modification was achieved via a threaded rod motivated by providing accurate optic positioning.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights