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 with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection (see below).
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0293942 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0092462 A1).
As to claim 1, Lin shows a head-mountable device (i.e. VR glasses 601, Fig. 6 and para. 50) comprising: a frame (i.e. barrel kit 102, Fig. 3 and paras. 35 and 36); an optical assembly (i.e. display 104) supported by the frame (Fig. 3 and para. 30), the optical assembly comprising a display (Fig. 3 and para. 30); a lens 103 separated from the optical assembly by a gap (Fig. 3 and para. 30) a housing (i.e. barrel body 101, Fig. 1 and para. 30); and an elastic support 1053 (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39), wherein, when a force exceeding a threshold is applied to the lens, the elastic support is configured to deform to allow the lens to move toward the display (i.e. a user can adjust the positional relationships between the display, the lens and the user, Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
Lin does not show that the lens is disposed within a recess formed by the housing and the elastic support.
Wang shows that a lens is disposed within a recess formed by a housing and an elastic support (Figs. 7A and 7B and paras. 62 – 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with those of Wang because designing the system in this way allows the device to adjust the focal length of the lens array (para. 66).
As to claim 2, Lin shows a lens assembly (i.e. barrel body 101, Fig. 3 and para. 39) comprising the lens and a lens assembly connector (i.e. latching portion 1053, Fig. 3 and para. 39), wherein the optical assembly further comprises an optical assembly connector 1053/1052/1062 configured to releasably engage the lens assembly connector (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
As to claim 3, Lin shows that the lens provides a view to the display when the lens assembly is coupled to the optical assembly with the lens assembly connector and the optical assembly connector (Fig. 3 and paras. 28 and 35 – 39).
As to claim 4, Lin shows that the housing is a first housing (i.e. barrel body 101, Fig. 3 and para. 30), and wherein the display is supported by a second housing of the optical assembly (i.e. barrel kit 102, Fig. 3 and para. 30).
As to claim 7, Lin shows that the elastic support is between the lens and the display (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
As to claim 9, Lin shows a lens assembly (i.e. barrel body 101, Fig. 3 and para. 39) for a head-mountable device (i.e. VR glasses 601, Fig. 6 and para. 50), the lens assembly comprising: a housing (i.e. barrel kit 102, Fig. 3 and paras. 35 and 36) configured to engage the head-mountable device (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39); a lens 103 (Fig. 3 and para. 30); and an elastic support 1053 coupling the lens to the housing (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39), the elastic support being deformable to allow the lens to travel with respect to the housing (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
As to claim 12, Lin shows a lens assembly connector configured to releasably engage to an HMD assembly engager of the head-mountable device (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
As to claim 14, Lin shows that the lens is supported between the housing and the elastic support (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
Claims 6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Wang as modified above in view of Jones, Jr., et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0052501 A1).
As to claims 6 and 15, Lin shows that the lens is supported between a housing and the elastic support (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
Lin does not show that the elastic support has an elastic modulus that is lower than an elastic modulus of the housing.
Jones shows that an elastic support has an elastic modulus that is lower than an elastic modulus of a housing (i.e. frame, Fig. 110B and para. 782).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with those of Jones because designing the system in this way allows the device to prevent deformation of the frame (para. 782).
As to claim 8, Lin shows a head engager configured to secure the frame to a head (inherently the case with any form of glasses, Fig. 6 and para. 50), the frame supporting the optical assembly (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
Lin does not show a camera; a microphone; a speaker; or a frame supporting the camera, the microphone and the speaker.
Jones shows a camera (Fig. 110C and para. 784); a microphone 1720; a speaker 1722 (Fig. 17 and para. 285) and a frame supporting the camera, the microphone and the speaker (Figs. 17 and 110C and paras. 285 and 784).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with those of Jones because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide enhanced functionality (paras. 285 and 784).
Claims 16, 17, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Wang in view of Son et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0179218 A1).
As to claim 16, Lin shows a head-mountable device (i.e. VR glasses 601, Fig. 6 and para. 50) comprising: a frame (i.e. barrel kit 102, Fig. 3 and paras. 35 and 36); an optical assembly (i.e. display 104) supported by the frame (Fig. 3 and para. 30), the optical assembly comprising: a display (Fig. 3 and paras. 30 and 39); and a lens assembly (including lens 103) comprising: a housing configured to engage the optical assembly (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39); an elastic support 1053 (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39) and a lens 103, wherein the lens is moveable through the elastic support with respect to the first lens while the housing is engaged to the optical assembly (i.e. a user can adjust the positional relationships between the display, the lens and the user, Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
Lin as modified above does not show that the lens is disposed within a recess formed by the housing and the elastic support.
Wang shows that a lens is disposed within a recess formed by a housing and an elastic support (Figs. 7A and 7B and paras. 62 – 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with those of Wang because designing the system in this way allows the device to adjust the focal length of the lens array (para. 66).
Lin as modified above does not show that the optical assembly comprises multiple lenses.
Son shows that an optical assembly comprises multiple lenses (120/150, Fig. 1 and paras. 39 and 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with those of Son because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide an extended field of view (para. 39).
As to claim 17, Lin shows that the elastic support being deformable to allow the second lens to travel with respect to the housing (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
As to claim 20, Lin shows that the optical assembly further comprises an optical assembly connector (i.e. latching portion 1053, Fig. 3 and para. 39); and the lens assembly further comprises a lens assembly connector 1053/1052/1062 configured to releasably engage the optical assembly connector to secure the lens assembly with respect to the optical assembly (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
As to claim 22, Lin shows that the lens assembly defines multiple recesses 1062 configured to support the lens at corresponding positions along an optical axis of the lens assembly (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
Lin as modified above does not show that the optical assembly comprises multiple lenses.
Son shows that an optical assembly comprises multiple lenses (120/150, Fig. 1 and paras. 39 and 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with those of Son because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide an extended field of view (para. 39).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Wang and Son as combined above in view of Jones, Jr., et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0052501 A1).
As to claim 18, Lin does not show that the elastic support has an elastic modulus that is lower than an elastic modulus of the housing.
Jones shows that an elastic support has an elastic modulus that is lower than an elastic modulus of a housing (i.e. frame, Fig. 110B and para. 782).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with those of Jones because designing the system in this way allows the device to prevent deformation of the frame (para. 782).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Wang and Son as combined above in view of Masuda et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0004004 A1).
As to claim 19, Lin as modified above does not show that the optical assembly is moveably coupled to the frame by a spring.
Masuda shows that an optical assembly is moveably coupled to the frame by a spring 83 (Figs. 5 and 6 and paras. 45 – 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with those of Masuda because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide an adjustment part (para. 45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, 13 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, claims 5 and 13 recite that “…the recess defining a maximum inner cross-sectional dimension that is greater than a maximum inner cross-sectional dimension of the elastic support.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, these claims contain allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 9 recites that “…the elastic support comprises multiple columns extending along an inner surface of the housing and circumferentially separated from each other by grooves.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter at least by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2627
