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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3-4, and 25 objected to because of the following informalities: "the application" should be "a application”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 8 objected to because of the following informalities: "the respective aperture" should be "a respective aperture". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 19 objected to because of the following informalities: "the plane" should be "a plane". Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "36a" and "36b" have both been used to designate 36L and 36 R. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 118. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 7 discloses "an interface 8" which does not exist on Fig. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 7 discloses "the contact point 9" which does not exist on Fig. 1. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 10 discloses "the pair of eyepieces 10L, 10R" which does not exist on Fig. 3A.. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 58 discloses a cutout 76 but does not exist on Fig. 11. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200278557) in view of Hirano et al (U.S. Pub. No. 20150277125).
Regarding claim 1, Greenstein discloses an eyewear device for being worn on a head of a user for presenting virtual content to a user, comprising (para 43, “Referring now to the drawings, FIGS. 1-14C illustrate various embodiments and various components of a head-mounted augmented reality device, generally designated 10, for displaying an augmented reality display to a user viewing a real scene”; also, para 68, “An alternative "form factor" employs a glass-frame type device, in which support structure 20 includes a pair of side arms deployed for engaging ears of the user (not shown).”): a frame structure having a frame front (para 44, “The device also includes a support structure 20 configured to engage regions of a head of the user so as to be supported by the head of the user.”; also, para 64, “In certain particularly preferred implementations of the present invention, support structure 20 includes a casing 68 at least partially enclosing optical bench 22, as best seen in FIG. 10.”; also, para 62, “Referring first to FIG. 9A, the support structure (not shown) is here provided with two side brackets 54 terminating at apertures 56 within which elastomeric grommets 58 are positioned.”); an optical assembly having a first rigidity, the optical assembly having a chassis and a plurality of optical components affixed to the chassis (para 4, “It is a particular feature of one aspect of the present invention that device 10 includes an optical bench 22 which provides a first set of alignment features for aligning and affixing the right optical module, a second set of alignment features for aligning and affixing the left optical module, and a suspension arrangement for suspending the optical bench relative to the support structure.”; also, para 53, “Turning now to other features of optical bench 22, the optical bench may advantageously be formed as a unitary block of material, which tends to enhance its rigidity and structural strength for a given weight. Suitable materials for optical bench 22 include, but are not limited to, various metals or metal alloys, such as aluminum, and fiber-reinforced polymers such as carbon composite materials.”; also, para 54, “The structure and material are chosen in order to provide a substantially rigid interconnection between the optical modules 12.”; also, para 54, “In the example of FIGS. 12A-12B, this includes a camera assembly 40 including a stereo pair of cameras 42, an IMU 44, and driver circuitry 46 for the optical modules 12.”; also, para 45, “The use of a dedicated optical bench, typically implemented using more rigid and/or more precisely machinable material than is used for the support structure, facilitates more precise alignment of the optical modules than could otherwise be achieved.”); and a plurality of mounts mechanically coupling the chassis of the optical assembly to the frame front (para 62, “A bolt 60 and washer 62 pass through a central bore of each grommet 58 and engage a threaded aperture 64 on each side of optical bench 22.”; also, para 62, “This last degree of rotational freedom is cancelled by a damping connector 66 which is attached off-axis relative to bolts 60 near the center of the optical bench, and is connected via another bracket (not shown) to the support structure, thereby forming a damped connection between optical bench 22 and the support structure.”; also, para 63, “Although the above suspension arrangement provides support for the optical bench in three spaced-apart locations, each interconnection occurs through an elastomeric damping element which has the ability to attenuate impacts and vibrations, and to deform under conditions of stress (such as through differentials in thermal expansion coefficients) so as to avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench.”), at least one mount is configured for preventing at least a portion of a first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly (para 63, “Although the above suspension arrangement provides support for the optical bench in three spaced-apart locations, each interconnection occurs through an elastomeric damping element which has the ability to attenuate impacts and vibrations, and to deform under conditions of stress (such as through differentials in thermal expansion coefficients) so as to avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench.”; also, para 45 Specifically, the optical bench preferably provides a relatively rigid interconnection between the optical modules, defining and maintaining accurate alignment between the two optical modules while at least partially isolating the optical modules from much of the stress, vibration and/or impact to which the body-mounted support structure may be exposed during normal use”). Greenstein does not disclose at least one of the plurality of mounts having a second rigidity less than the first rigidity.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hirano discloses at least one of the plurality of mounts having a second rigidity less than the first rigidity (para 194, “In Example 1, as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5A, using the buffer member 162, the light guide plate 121 is supported by the two opposing inner side surfaces of the picture-frame-like support member 161.”; also, para 196, “In Example 1, the buffer member 162 may have an elastic modulus lower than that of the light guide plate 121 or 321. Assuming that the light guide plate 121 or 321 has the elastic modulus of 1, the buffer member 162 has the elastic modulus of 5×10.sup.−5, for example. The buffer member 162 is made of resin, and is specifically made of epoxy resin, modified silicone resin, epoxy-modified silicone resin, urethane resin, or others with the thickness of 0.01 mm to 20 mm inclusive (e.g., specifically 5 mm) in the example of FIG. 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention of an eyewear device having a frame structure with a frame front, an optical assembly with a chassis carrying a plurality of optical components, and a plurality of elastomeric mounts coupling the chassis to the frame front so that a static deformation load applied to the frame front is not fully communicated to the optical assembly with the features of Hirano's invention of supporting an optical component on the support member of an eyeglass-shaped display apparatus through buffer members having an elastic modulus lower than that of the supported optical component. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Hirano teaches that supporting an optical component at a plurality of portions through buffer members of lower elastic modulus prevents the degradation problems of display images caused by stresses arising between the members while retaining the component with sufficient stability, and specifying Greenstein's elastomeric mounts to have a rigidity lower than that of the optical assembly in the same manner yields the predictable result of the mounts, rather than the optical bench, deforming under load so that the accurate alignment of the optical modules is preserved.
Regarding claim 2, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, plurality of mounts are configured for preventing the at least portion of the first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly (Greenstein: para 63, “Although the above suspension arrangement provides support for the optical bench in three spaced-apart locations, each interconnection occurs through an elastomeric damping element which has the ability to attenuate impacts and vibrations, and to deform under conditions of stress (such as through differentials in thermal expansion coefficients) so as to avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench”). Greenstein does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of mounts has a second rigidity less than the first rigidity.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hirano discloses wherein each of the plurality of mounts has a second rigidity less than the first rigidity (para 196, “In Example 1, the buffer member 162 may have an elastic modulus lower than that of the light guide plate 121 or 321. Assuming that the light guide plate 121 or 321 has the elastic modulus of 1, the buffer member 162 has the elastic modulus of 5×10.sup.−5, for example. The buffer member 162 is made of resin, and is specifically made of epoxy resin, modified silicone resin, epoxy-modified silicone resin, urethane resin, or others with the thickness of 0.01 mm to 20 mm inclusive (e.g., specifically 5 mm) in the example of FIG. 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device in which the optical bench is suspended by a plurality of identical elastomeric damping mounts with the features of Hirano's invention of a buffer member having an elastic modulus lower than that of the supported optical component. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Hirano teaches that giving each supporting buffer member a lower elastic modulus than the optical component it supports prevents stresses arising between the members from degrading the displayed image while retaining the component with sufficient stability, and applying that teaching to each of Greenstein's identical elastomeric mounts yields the predictable result of each mount, rather than the optical bench, deforming under load so that the alignment of the optical modules is preserved.
Regarding claim 3, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, wherein the at least one mount is configured for preventing the at least portion of the first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly, such that the entire optical assembly translates relative to the frame front in response to the application of the first static deformation load to the frame front (Greenstein: para 62, “This bilateral attachment to side brackets 54 suspends optical bench 22 in a well-defined position relative to five out of the six degrees of freedom illustrated in FIG. 11A, namely, three axes of linear displacement and two axes of rotation.”; also, para 63, “Although the above suspension arrangement provides support for the optical bench in three spaced-apart locations, each interconnection occurs through an elastomeric damping element which has the ability to attenuate impacts and vibrations, and to deform under conditions of stress (such as through differentials in thermal expansion coefficients) so as to avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench.”; also, para 64, “In this case, casing 68 is preferably spaced from optical bench 22 and from optical modules 12 by a minimum gap 70 so as to avoid contact between the casing and both the optical bench and the pair of optical modules under a range of normal operating conditions.”).
Regarding claim 6, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, frame front has a third rigidity greater than the second rigidity of the at least one mount.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hirano discloses wherein the frame front has a third rigidity greater than the second rigidity of the at least one mount (para 84, “In the light guide unit or others in the first and second embodiments of the present disclosure, the support member may be made of various types of materials that are described for the light guide plate, or may be made of a metal or alloy material including magnesium alloy, aluminum, and aluminum alloy, for example.”; also, para 227, “The light guide plate is made of resin with the thickness of 1.0 mm, and the support member 161 is made of magnesium alloy with the thickness of 3.5 mm.”; also, para 196, “In Example 1, the buffer member 162 may have an elastic modulus lower than that of the light guide plate 121 or 321. Assuming that the light guide plate 121 or 321 has the elastic modulus of 1, the buffer member 162 has the elastic modulus of 5×10.sup.−5, for example. The buffer member 162 is made of resin, and is specifically made of epoxy resin, modified silicone resin, epoxy-modified silicone resin, urethane resin, or others with the thickness of 0.01 mm to 20 mm inclusive (e.g., specifically 5 mm) in the example of FIG. 1.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a frame front and at least one elastomeric mount of lower rigidity coupling the optical assembly to the frame front with the features of Hirano's invention of a support member made of a metal such as magnesium alloy that supports an optical component through a buffer member made of a resin having an elastic modulus of 5×10⁻⁵ of that of the optical component. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Hirano teaches forming the support member that carries the optical component from a rigid metal while forming the compliant buffer member that isolates the optical component from a low-modulus resin, so that the support member is more rigid than the buffer member, and forming Greenstein's frame front of a comparably rigid structural material relative to its elastomeric mounts yields the predictable result of a frame front having a third rigidity greater than the second rigidity of the mount, so that the mount, and not the frame front, deforms to isolate the optical assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of mounts mechanically couple a periphery of the chassis to the frame front (Greenstein: para 62, “A bolt 60 and washer 62 pass through a central bore of each grommet 58 and engage a threaded aperture 64 on each side of optical bench 22.”; also, para 62, “This bilateral attachment to side brackets 54 suspends optical bench 22 in a well-defined position relative to five out of the six degrees of freedom illustrated in FIG. 11A, namely, three axes of linear displacement and two axes of rotation.”).
Regarding claim 15, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, wherein the at least one mount is configured for preventing the at least portion of the static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the chassis (Greenstein: para 62, “This bilateral attachment to side brackets 54 suspends optical bench 22 in a well-defined position relative to five out of the six degrees of freedom illustrated in FIG. 11A, namely, three axes of linear displacement and two axes of rotation.”; also, para 63, “Although the above suspension arrangement provides support for the optical bench in three spaced-apart locations, each interconnection occurs through an elastomeric damping element which has the ability to attenuate impacts and vibrations, and to deform under conditions of stress (such as through differentials in thermal expansion coefficients) so as to avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench.”).
Regarding claim 16, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, wherein the at least one mount is configured for preventing the at least portion of the static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly in a direction parallel to a plane of the chassis (para 62, “This bilateral attachment to side brackets 54 suspends optical bench 22 in a well-defined position relative to five out of the six degrees of freedom illustrated in FIG. 11A, namely, three axes of linear displacement and two axes of rotation.”; also, para 63, “Although the above suspension arrangement provides support for the optical bench in three spaced-apart locations, each interconnection occurs through an elastomeric damping element which has the ability to attenuate impacts and vibrations, and to deform under conditions of stress (such as through differentials in thermal expansion coefficients) so as to avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench.”).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200278557) as modified by Hirano et al (U.S. Pub. No. 20150277125), further in view of Zadesky (U.S. Pub. No. 20090175020).
Regarding claim 4, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 3, wherein the at least one mount is configured for maintaining the optical assembly at a nominal position relative to the frame front in the absence of the application of the first static deformation load to the frame front, preventing the at least portion of the first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly (Greenstein: para 62, “This bilateral attachment to side brackets 54 suspends optical bench 22 in a well-defined position relative to five out of the six degrees of freedom illustrated in FIG. 11A, namely, three axes of linear displacement and two axes of rotation.”; also, para 63, “Although the above suspension arrangement provides support for the optical bench in three spaced-apart locations, each interconnection occurs through an elastomeric damping element which has the ability to attenuate impacts and vibrations, and to deform under conditions of stress (such as through differentials in thermal expansion coefficients) so as to avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench.”), does not disclose such that the entire optical assembly translates from the nominal position to a new position relative to the frame front in response to the application of the first static deformation load to the frame front, and allowing the entire optical assembly to translate from the new position back to the nominal position relative to the frame front in response to a cessation of the application of the first static deformation load to the frame front.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zadesky discloses such that the entire optical assembly translates from the nominal position to a new position relative to the frame front in response to the application of the first static deformation load to the frame front, and allowing the entire optical assembly to translate from the new position back to the nominal position relative to the frame front in response to a cessation of the application of the first static deformation load to the frame front (para 25, “Retaining features may be designed or shaped so as to elastically couple components to the case, such that components can move if external forces are applied to the components or to the case and can return to their original positions once the forces are removed.”; also, para 25, “The compliance of shaft 229 and spring 231 may additionally mechanically insulate plate 222, circuit board 223, and any other components coupled to them, from vibrations or other forces (e.g., bumps, drops, etc.) applied to housing 201 or case 200.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a rigid optical bench suspended in a well-defined position from the support structure by a plurality of elastomeric damping mounts that deform under stress with the features of Zadesky's invention of elastic couplings that allow a component secured within a case to move when external forces are applied to the case and to return to its original position once the forces are removed. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Zadesky teaches that compliant, elastic coupling of an internal component to its case mechanically insulates the component from forces applied to the case, and configuring Greenstein's elastomeric suspension with that move-and-return behavior yields the predictable result of an optical bench that displaces from its well-defined position while the support structure is deformed and is restored to that position when the deformation load ceases, preserving binocular alignment without a permanent offset.
Regarding claim 12, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, further comprising at least one flex cable coupled to the chassis of the optical assembly (Greenstein: para 66, “It will be noted that there are typically various flexible electrical cables which pass between the support structure and the optical modules, providing power and video signals etc.”; also, para 66, “Although these flexible cables may convey some small force between the elements, any such forces are unintended, intentionally minimized, and are negligible compared to the mechanical connections which support the structures.”), Greenstein does not disclose wherein the at least one flex cable asserts a first biasing force between the frame front and the optical assembly, and wherein the at least one mount is configured for applying a second biasing force between the frame front and the optical assembly, the second biasing force opposing the first biasing force.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zadesky discloses wherein the at least one flex cable asserts a first biasing force between the frame front and the optical assembly, and wherein the at least one mount is configured for applying a second biasing force between the frame front and the optical assembly, the second biasing force opposing the first biasing force (para 25, “Retaining features may be designed or shaped so as to elastically couple components to the case, such that components can move if external forces are applied to the components or to the case and can return to their original positions once the forces are removed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a rigid optical bench suspended from the support structure by a plurality of elastomeric damping mounts and flexible electrical cables that convey a small force between the support structure and the optical modules with the features of Zadesky's invention of elastic couplings that apply a restoring force returning a component toward its original position against forces applied to it. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Zadesky teaches that elastically coupling a component to its case keeps the component at its original position despite applied forces, and configuring Greenstein's elastomeric mounts to restore the optical bench against the residual force of the flexible cables yields the predictable result of the bench being held at its well-defined nominal position so that the binocular alignment of the optical modules is preserved.
Claim(s) 5, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200278557) as modified by Hirano et al (U.S. Pub. No. 20150277125), further in view of Bookbinder et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 6430350)
Regarding claim 5, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of optical components are configured for moving relative to each other in response to an application of a second static deformation load to the optical assembly (Greenstein: para 3, “Furthermore, the alignment and placement of the optical modules with respect to each other for binocular vision, as well as alignment with respect to any additional sensors and with respect to the observer, are subject to tight tolerances.”; also, para 3, “Mechanical stress on the device, vibrations, shock, thermal fluctuations and thermal gradients may all lead to abrupt or gradual misalignment of the optical modules and other components, or damage to the modules.”; also, para 54, “In this context, "substantially rigid" is used to refer to a structure which maintains alignment of the optical modules over a range of mechanical operating conditions to which a body-mounted device is normally exposed, which includes the linear and angular accelerations performed by the human head and/or body during movement, and bearing in mind the weight of the modules themselves.”), and wherein the application of the first static deformation load to the frame front causes a third static deformation load to be applied to the optical assembly (Greenstein: para 45, “Specifically, the optical bench preferably provides a relatively rigid interconnection between the optical modules, defining and maintaining accurate alignment between the two optical modules while at least partially isolating the optical modules from much of the stress, vibration and/or impact to which the body-mounted support structure may be exposed during normal use.”; also, para 45, “optical bench may also serve to define and maintain alignment between the optical modules and additional components, such as camera(s) and/or an inertial measurement unit (IMU), and similarly protect those elements from at least part of the mechanical and/or thermally-induced stresses to which the device may be exposed.”), first static deformation load being higher than the second static deformation load, and the third static deformation load being less than the second static deformation load.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bookbinder discloses the first static deformation load being higher than the second static deformation load, and the third static deformation load being less than the second static deformation load (col 6, “In a more preferred aspect of the present invention, the displacement d, the area A, the shear modulus G' , and the thickness t are adjusted to limit the force F.sub.o such that it satisfies the following condition: F.sub.o <0.10(F.sub.h) where: F.sub.h : force imposed on the connecting portion 32, 42, 52 due to a dimensional change of the housing caused by a variation in ambient conditions”; also, col 7, “In the optical device according to the present invention, the optical waveguide component is substantially completely isolated from force imposed on the connecting portion due to a dimensional change of the housing. In other words, the optical waveguide component is not subjected to loads under normal operating conditions that will cause its optical performance to deviate from acceptable tolerances.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a substantially rigid optical bench whose optical modules are misaligned by mechanical stress beyond a bounded range and that is suspended from the support structure by a plurality of elastomeric damping mounts conveying only a reduced residual stress with the features of Bookbinder's invention of a compliant connecting portion configured so that the force imposed on an isolated optical component is less than one tenth of the force imposed on the connecting portion by a dimensional change of the housing and is below the level at which the optical component's performance would deviate from acceptable tolerances. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Bookbinder teaches that configuring the compliant mount so that the residual force reaching the optical component is a small fraction of the force imposed by a dimensional change of the housing keeps that residual force below the level that would carry the optical component out of tolerance, and configuring Greenstein's elastomeric suspension in the same manner yields the predictable result of an optical bench whose optical modules remain within their alignment tolerance while the frame front bears a higher static deformation load.
Regarding claim 13, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, at least one mount is configured for preventing at least fifty percent of the first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bookbinder discloses wherein the at least one mount is configured for preventing at least fifty percent of the first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly (col 6, “In a more preferred aspect of the present invention, the displacement d, the area A, the shear modulus G' , and the thickness t are adjusted to limit the force F.sub.o such that it satisfies the following condition: F.sub.o <0.10(F.sub.h) where: F.sub.h : force imposed on the connecting portion 32, 42, 52 due to a dimensional change of the housing caused by a variation in ambient conditions”; also, col 6, “In the first embodiment, the force F.sub.o transferred to the optical waveguide component 11 through the connecting portion 32 is reduced by reducing the area A and increasing the thickness t.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a rigid optical bench suspended from the support structure by a plurality of elastomeric damping mounts that avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench with the features of Bookbinder's invention of a compliant connecting portion configured so that the force transferred to an isolated optical component is less than one tenth of the force imposed on the connecting portion by a dimensional change of the housing. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Bookbinder teaches that limiting the force reaching the optical component to less than one tenth of the force imposed by a dimensional change of the housing keeps the optical component within its performance tolerances, and configuring Greenstein's elastomeric mounts to provide that degree of attenuation yields the predictable result of an optical bench that remains aligned while at least fifty percent of a static deformation load applied to the frame front is prevented from being mechanically communicated to it.
Regarding claim 14, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, at least one mount is configured for preventing at least seventy-five percent of the first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bookbinder discloses wherein the at least one mount is configured for preventing at least seventy-five percent of the first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly (col 6, “In a more preferred aspect of the present invention, the displacement d, the area A, the shear modulus G' , and the thickness t are adjusted to limit the force F.sub.o such that it satisfies the following condition: F.sub.o <0.10(F.sub.h) where: F.sub.h : force imposed on the connecting portion 32, 42, 52 due to a dimensional change of the housing caused by a variation in ambient conditions”; also, col 6, “In the first embodiment, the force F.sub.o transferred to the optical waveguide component 11 through the connecting portion 32 is reduced by reducing the area A and increasing the thickness t.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a rigid optical bench suspended from the support structure by a plurality of elastomeric damping mounts that avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench with the features of Bookbinder's invention of a compliant connecting portion configured so that the force transferred to an isolated optical component is less than one tenth of the force imposed on the connecting portion by a dimensional change of the housing. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Bookbinder teaches that limiting the force reaching the optical component to less than one tenth of the force imposed by a dimensional change of the housing keeps the optical component within its performance tolerances, and configuring Greenstein's elastomeric mounts to provide that degree of attenuation yields the predictable result of an optical bench that remains aligned while at least seventy-five percent of a static deformation load applied to the frame front is prevented from being mechanically communicated to it.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200278557) as modified by Hirano et al (U.S. Pub. No. 20150277125), further in view of Estes et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 7227761).
Regarding claim 8, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, chassis comprises at least one through-hole, and each of the at least one mount comprises a relatively rigid boss extending from the frame front through a respective one of the at least one through-hole of the chassis, and a compliant bushing coaxially disposed between the respective aperture of the chassis and the respective relatively rigid boss.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Estes discloses wherein the chassis comprises at least one through-hole (col 5, “The circuit board 16 includes a mounting hole 50, extending around the outward extending portion 36 of the screw insert 34.”), and each of the at least one mount comprises a relatively rigid boss extending from the frame front through a respective one of the at least one through-hole of the chassis (col 4, “The first cover 12 includes a mounting post 32 having a screw insert 34 with an outward extending portion 36 extending outward from the first mounting surface 18 to an insert end surface 38. A threaded hole 40 extends inward, within the screw insert 34 from the insert end surface 38.”; also, col 5, “The circuit board 16 includes a mounting hole 50, extending around the outward extending portion 36 of the screw insert 34.”; also, col 4, “For example, the main structure 48 of first cover 12 is composed of a thermoplastic resin, while the screw insert 34 is composed of metal, being attached to the main structure 48 by means well understood by those skilled in the art of making such covers.”), and a compliant bushing coaxially disposed between the respective aperture of the chassis and the respective relatively rigid boss (col 6, “FIG. 4 is a fragmentary cross-sectional view of a portable electronic device 88 built in accordance with a second alternative embodiment of the invention to a grommet 90 extending between the first mounting surface 18 of the first cover 12 and the second mounting surface 22 of the second cover 14. The grommet 90 includes an elastomeric pad forming a first resilient spring member 92, a second elastomeric pad forming a second resilient spring member 94, and an elastomeric core 96 extending between the first resilient spring member 92 and the second resilient spring member 94. While the surfaces of the circuit board mounting holes 98 do not slide on the protruding portion 36 of the screw insert 34, as described in reference to electronic device 10 built in accordance with the first embodiment of the invention, other aspects of the portable electronic device 88 are as described above in reference to FIGS. 1 and 2.”; also, col 3, “Alternately, both of the resilient spring members may be elastomeric pads forming portions of a grommet extending through the mounting hole in the circuit board.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a support structure, a rigid optical bench carrying a plurality of optical components, and a plurality of elastomeric suspension mounts coupling the periphery of the optical bench to the support structure with the features of Estes's invention of a mounting arrangement in which a relatively rigid screw insert extends from a housing cover through a mounting hole of the suspended component with an elastomeric grommet interposed between the mounting hole and the insert. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Estes teaches that resiliently mounting a component on grommeted housing bosses prevents damage caused by the application of static forces that warp the housing covers when the device is placed in a confined space with other objects, which is the same static deformation problem addressed by Greenstein's elastomeric suspension, and replacing Greenstein's bracket-aperture grommet-and-bolt interconnection with Estes's boss-through-grommeted-hole interconnection is a simple substitution of one known elastomeric grommet mounting configuration for another, yielding the predictable result of an optical bench that remains compliantly suspended from the support structure and isolated from static warping of the casing.
Regarding claim 9, Greenstein as modified by Hirano and Estes discloses the eyewear device of claim 8, compliant bushing is composed of an elastomeric material.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Estes discloses wherein the compliant bushing is composed of an elastomeric material (col 6, “The grommet 90 includes an elastomeric pad forming a first resilient spring member 92, a second elastomeric pad forming a second resilient spring member 94, and an elastomeric core 96 extending between the first resilient spring member 92 and the second resilient spring member 94.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a rigid optical bench compliantly suspended from the support structure with the features of Estes's invention of a mounting grommet formed of elastomeric pads and an elastomeric core. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Estes teaches that the elastomeric pads and core of the grommet provide the resilient engagement that isolates the suspended component from warping of the housing, and Greenstein likewise employs elastomeric damping elements in its suspension, so forming the bushing of the combined mount from an elastomeric material yields the predictable result of a compliant, vibration-attenuating interconnection between the support structure and the optical bench.
Regarding claim 10, Greenstein as modified by Hirano and Estes discloses the eyewear device of claim 8, frame front comprises a front housing portion and a rear housing portion, each of relatively rigid boss has a first boss component extending from the front housing portion and a second boss component extending from the rear housing portion, and each of the at least one mount further comprises a fastener that affixes the respective first boss component to the respective second boss component, thereby affixing the front housing portion and rear housing portion to each other.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Estes discloses wherein the frame front comprises a front housing portion and a rear housing portion, each of relatively rigid boss has a first boss component extending from the front housing portion and a second boss component extending from the rear housing portion (col 4, “The first cover 12 includes a mounting post 32 having a screw insert 34 with an outward extending portion 36 extending outward from the first mounting surface 18 to an insert end surface 38. A threaded hole 40 extends inward, within the screw insert 34 from the insert end surface 38.”; also, col 4, “The second cover 14 includes a mounting post 42 through which a hole 44 extends, being aligned with the threaded hole 40.”), and each of the at least one mount further comprises a fastener that affixes the respective first boss component to the respective second boss component, thereby affixing the front housing portion and rear housing portion to each other (col 4, “A mounting screw 46 extends through the hole 44, engaging the threaded hole 40 to hold the insert end surface 38 against the second mounting surface 22 of the mounting post 42.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device having a support structure with a casing enclosing a rigid optical bench suspended by a plurality of elastomeric mounts with the features of Estes's invention of aligned mounting posts extending from a first cover and a second cover of the housing, joined by a mounting screw through the elastomerically grommeted mounting hole of the suspended component. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Estes teaches that resiliently mounting the suspended component between aligned posts of the two covers prevents damage caused by the application of static forces that warp the covers, and forming Greenstein's casing as front and rear portions joined at the very bosses that carry the compliant mounts allows the fasteners that join the housing portions to double as the suspension mounts, yielding the predictable result of an optical bench isolated from static deformation of the casing with a reduced part count and simplified assembly.
Regarding claim 11, Greenstein as modified by Hirano and Estes discloses the eyewear device of claim 8, wherein the frame structure comprises a pair of temple arms affixed to the frame front (Greenstein: para 68, “An alternative "form factor" employs a glass-frame type device, in which support structure 20 includes a pair of side arms deployed for engaging ears of the user (not shown).”).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200278557) in view of Hirano et al (U.S. Pub. No. 20150277125), further in view of Zimmerman et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 11762422).
Regarding claim 17, Greenstein as modified by Hirano discloses the eyewear device of claim 1, further comprising plurality of rigid stops configured for creating a plurality of contact points in response to a dynamic deformation load applied to the frame front, such that at least a portion of the dynamic deformation load applied to the frame front is communicated to the chassis through the plurality of contact points.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zimmerman discloses a plurality of rigid stops configured for creating a plurality of contact points in response to a dynamic deformation load applied to the frame front, such that at least a portion of the dynamic deformation load applied to the frame front is communicated to the chassis through the plurality of contact points (col 8, “For example, hard stop structure (sometimes referred to as hard stops or displacement-limiting structures) may be formed in housing 12 that help prevent portions of frame 40 from bending or otherwise deforming more than a predetermined amount.”; also, col 8, “The surfaces of recess 54, which are used to form a hard stop structure, are separated from the surfaces of end 52 of support member 44 by a gap.”; also, col 9, “In the event that device 10 is subjected to a large impact (e.g., an undesired drop event in which device 10 is dropped from a large height onto a hard surface), end 52 of member 44 in frame 40 will bottom out on the surface of the hard stop.”; also, col 9, “Hard stops formed from portions of housing 12 may be used to prevent over-travel of members 44 and/or any other portions of frame 40.; also, col 9, “As a result, the portion of housing 12 forming the hard stop will not exert any direct force on end 52 and will therefore not deform frame 40 and will not cause any misalignment between the optical module, cameras, and/or other optical components that are coupled to the frame”; also, col 7, “As shown in the illustrative rear view of FIG. 4, for example, each optical module 30 may be supported by an upper member 44-1 and a lower member 44-2 that runs parallel to the upper member (e.g., there may be two of members 44 extending from the left side of nose bridge structure 42 and two of members 44 extending from the right side of nose bridge structure 42).”; also, col 8, “Layer 12R-2 may be a rigid polymer member that has left and right openings aligned, respectively, with left and right eye boxes and left and right optical modules.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device in which a rigid optical bench carrying the optical components is suspended from the support structure by a plurality of elastomeric damping mounts and is enclosed by a casing spaced from the bench by a minimum gap with the features of Zimmerman's invention of a plurality of hard stop structures formed in portions of the housing, separated from the suspended internal frame by a gap, against which the frame bottoms out under a large impact. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Zimmerman teaches that hard stops formed in the housing of a head-mounted device prevent over-travel and plastic deformation of a compliantly suspended internal frame when the device is dropped from a large height, while Greenstein designs its clearance gap to remain open for drops from heights of up to at least one meter and does not address more severe impacts that could close the gap and allow the optical bench to bottom out in an uncontrolled manner, so providing Zimmerman's hard stops in Greenstein's casing applies a known displacement-limiting technique to a device ready for such improvement, yielding the predictable result of an optical bench that is protected against damage and misalignment during severe drop events by transferring the excess dynamic load through defined contact points at the stops.
Regarding claim 18, Greenstein as modified by Hirano and Zimmerman discloses the eyewear device of claim 17, at least portion of the dynamic deformation load is communicated to the chassis through the plurality of contacts in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the chassis.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zimmerman discloses wherein the at least portion of the dynamic deformation load is communicated to the chassis through the plurality of contacts in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the chassis (col 9, “Hard stops may be formed from any suitable portions of housing 12 (e.g. the front and rear housing layers of FIG. 7, housing sidewalls, structures attached to these layers, etc.).”; also. Col 8, “As shown in FIG. 7, housing 12 may include sidewall portions 12W that extend between one or more housing layers such as layers 12F-1 and 12F-2 on front face F and one or more housing layers such as layers 12R-1 and 12R-2 on rear face R.”; also, col 8, “The laterally extending support members of frame 40 (e.g., members 44L and/or members 44 of FIG. 6) may run straight across device 10 from left to right (e.g., these members may lie in the X-Y plane of FIG. 6) or may be bent where joined at structure 42.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device in which a rigid optical bench is suspended by elastomeric mounts within a spaced casing with the features of Zimmerman's invention of hard stops formed from the front and rear housing layers of the device. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Zimmerman teaches that hard stops may be formed from any suitable portion of the housing including its front and rear layers, and placing stops forward and rearward of the suspended bench limits its over-travel along the axis perpendicular to the bench plane, yielding the predictable result of arresting fore-and-aft displacement of the optical bench during a drop event.
Regarding claim 19, Greenstein as modified by Hirano and Zimmerman discloses the eyewear device of claim 17, disclose wherein the at least portion of the dynamic deformation load is communicated to the chassis through the plurality of contacts in a direction parallel to the plane of the chassis.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zimmerman discloses wherein the at least portion of the dynamic deformation load is communicated to the chassis through the plurality of contacts in a direction parallel to the plane of the chassis (col 8, “Consider, as an example, the hard stop arrangement of FIG. 8. In the example of FIG. 8, a portion of housing 12 such as sidewall portion 12W has recess 54. The surfaces of recess 54, which are used to form a hard stop structure, are separated from the surfaces of end 52 of support member 44 by a gap.”; also, col 9, “In the event that device 10 is subjected to a large impact (e.g., an undesired drop event in which device 10 is dropped from a large height onto a hard surface), end 52 of member 44 in frame 40 will bottom out on the surface of the hard stop.”; also, col 8, “The laterally extending support members of frame 40 (e.g., members 44L and/or members 44 of FIG. 6) may run straight across device 10 from left to right (e.g., these members may lie in the X-Y plane of FIG. 6) or may be bent where joined at structure 42.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Greenstein's invention, as modified by Hirano, of an eyewear device in which a rigid optical bench is suspended by elastomeric mounts within a spaced casing with the features of Zimmerman's invention of hard stop recesses formed in the housing sidewalls that receive the lateral ends of the suspended frame. A person of ordinary skill would have made this combination because Zimmerman teaches that sidewall recesses receiving the ends of the internal frame arrest lateral over-travel during a drop event, and applying that arrangement to the lateral extremities of Greenstein's optical bench limits its displacement along directions lying in the bench plane, yielding the predictable result of arresting lateral displacement of the optical bench during a drop event.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200278557).
Regarding claim 25, Greenstein discloses an eyewear device for being worn on a head of a user for presenting virtual content to a user, comprising (para 43, “Referring now to the drawings, FIGS. 1-14C illustrate various embodiments and various components of a head-mounted augmented reality device, generally designated 10, for displaying an augmented reality display to a user viewing a real scene.”; also, para 68, “An alternative "form factor" employs a glass-frame type device, in which support structure 20 includes a pair of side arms deployed for engaging ears of the user (not shown).”): a frame structure having a frame front (para 44, “The device also includes a support structure 20 configured to engage regions of a head of the user so as to be supported by the head of the user.”; also, para 64, “In certain particularly preferred implementations of the present invention, support structure 20 includes a casing 68 at least partially enclosing optical bench 22, as best seen in FIG. 10.”); an optical assembly having a first rigidity, the optical assembly having a chassis and a plurality of optical components affixed to the chassis (para 44, “It is a particular feature of one aspect of the present invention that device 10 includes an optical bench 22 which provides a first set of alignment features for aligning and affixing the right optical module, a second set of alignment features for aligning and affixing the left optical module, and a suspension arrangement for suspending the optical bench relative to the support structure.”; also, para 54, “The structure and material are chosen in order to provide a substantially rigid interconnection between the optical modules 12.”; also, para 54, “In the example of FIGS. 12A-12B, this includes a camera assembly 40 including a stereo pair of cameras 42, an IMU 44, and driver circuitry 46 for the optical modules 12.”; also, para 45, “The use of a dedicated optical bench, typically implemented using more rigid and/or more precisely machinable material than is used for the support structure, facilitates more precise alignment of the optical modules than could otherwise be achieved.”); and a plurality of mounts mechanically coupling the chassis of the optical assembly to the frame front (para 62, “Referring first to FIG. 9A, the support structure (not shown) is here provided with two side brackets 54 terminating at apertures 56 within which elastomeric grommets 58 are positioned.”; also, para 62, “A bolt 60 and washer 62 pass through a central bore of each grommet 58 and engage a threaded aperture 64 on each side of optical bench 22.”; also, para 62, “This last degree of rotational freedom is cancelled by a damping connector 66 which is attached off-axis relative to bolts 60 near the center of the optical bench, and is connected via another bracket (not shown) to the support structure, thereby forming a damped connection between optical bench 22 and the support structure.”), wherein at least one of the plurality of mounts is configured for preventing at least portion of a first static deformation load applied to the frame front from being mechanically communicated to the optical assembly, such that the entire optical assembly translates relative to the frame front in response to the application of the first static deformation load to the frame front (para 63, “Although the above suspension arrangement provides support for the optical bench in three spaced-apart locations, each interconnection occurs through an elastomeric damping element which has the ability to attenuate impacts and vibrations, and to deform under conditions of stress (such as through differentials in thermal expansion coefficients) so as to avoid conveying significant stress to the optical bench.”; also, para 64, “In this case, casing 68 is preferably spaced from optical bench 22 and from optical modules 12 by a minimum gap 70 so as to avoid contact between the casing and both the optical bench and the pair of optical modules under a range of normal operating conditions.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jai Li whose telephone number is (571)272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu between 06:00-16:00 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/JAI W LI/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights