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 .
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0293942 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); and an elastic support 1053 connecting the lens to the optical assembly (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39), wherein, when a force exceeding a threshold is applied to the lens, the elastic support is configured 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).
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 display and the lens are supported by a housing of the optical assembly (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39), the lens being coupled to the housing by the elastic support (Fig. 3 and paras. 35 – 39).
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).
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 6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin 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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin 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); and a lens 103, wherein the lens is moveable 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 does not show that the optical assembly comprises a lens.
Son shows that an optical assembly comprises a lens 120 (Fig. 1 and para. 39).
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 the lens assembly further comprises an elastic support 1053 coupling the second lens to the housing, 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin 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 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).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Shi (US Pub. No. 2018/0307043 A1).
As to claim 10, Lin does not show that the elastic support forms an annular ring extending continuously within the housing.
Shi shows than an elastic support forms an annular ring extending continuously within a housing (Fig. 6 and paras. 35 – 37).
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 Shi because designing the system in this way allows the device to reduce the risk that the outside light might affect the visual effect and ensure the high-quality display of the head-mounted display device (para. 36).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11 and 13 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 lens is disposed within a recess formed at least in part by the elastic support, 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 11 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.
CONCLUSION
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
Prosecution Insights