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 .
Drawings
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: Reference numeral 103 in Fig. 1B is not mentioned in the Specification. 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: The word “head” is misspelled in paragraph 0045. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-13 are 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the display unit” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-13 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 8.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yee (US 10,045,449 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Yee discloses a head-mountable electronic device (head-mounted-display system 100), comprising:
a display unit comprising a display (head-mounted-display device 102; see col. 4, lines 31-41);
a first frame coupled to the display (facial interface 110; see Figs. 1-3);
a second frame (head-mounted-display housing 116) coupled to the first frame (110) by a first actuator (actuation member 142; see Figs. 2-3); and
a securement strap (strap assembly 106) coupled to the second frame (see Fig. 1);
wherein:
the first actuator (142) is configured to adjust a distance between the first frame and the second frame (see col. 7, line 64 – col. 8, line 9; see also, Figs. 2-3); and
the first actuator is non-backdrivable (see col. 7, line 64 – col. 8, line 9 describing how actuation member 142 facilitates movement of primary positioning member 132A and secondary positioning member 132B to and from extended and contracted holding positions).
Regarding claim 3, Yee discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yee
further discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first actuator comprises a spring (spring 148; see col. 9, lines 22-26 and Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, Yee discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yee
further discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1, wherein:
the first actuator comprises a button (sliding member 144; see col. 9, lines 11-17); and
the distance is configured to be adjusted when the button is actuated (moving 144 in the X1 direction adjusts the distance from D2 to D1 and moving 144 in the X2 direction adjusts that distance from D1 to D2; see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Yee discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yee
further discloses the head-mountable electronic device of claim 1, wherein:
the second frame (116) is further coupled to the first frame (110) by a second actuator (230 and/or 330; see Figs. 6 and 7); and
the second actuator (230 and/or 330) is configured to adjust an angle of the first frame relative to the second frame (see col. 14, lines 1-38 describing how multiple facial-interface adjustment apparatuses can be incorporated into the device; see for e.g. Fig. 6, showing a facial-interface adjustment apparatus 230 disposed in a forehead region and a facial-interface adjustment apparatus 230 disposed in a nasal region, since they are disposed on opposite sides of the frames they are capable of adjusting an angle of the first frame relative to the second frame).
Claims 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bethel et al. (US 2025/0102812 A1), hereinafter Bethel.
Regarding claim 8, Bethel discloses a wearable electronic device (head-wearable device 110), comprising:
a display (lens holder 120 and first frame piece 130);
a device seal configured to physically interface with a user (second frame piece 140 and facial interface 150; see paragraph 0024); and
an actuator (actuator 350) coupled to the display and the device seal (see Fig. 3B), the actuator configured to adjust a position of the display unit relative to the device seal in response to a signal from the wearable electronic device (see paragraph 0033-0034 describing how a user may change eye relief distance by interacting with user interface 310; thus head-wearable device 110 must send some sort of signal to actuator 350).
Regarding claim 9, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above.
Bethel further discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 8, wherein:
the actuator comprises a manual actuator (UI elements 314A-B; see paragraph 0033 and Fig. 3A); and
the display is configured to display instructions for adjusting the position of the display unit relative to the device seal (see paragraph 0033 describing user interface 310; see also, Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 10, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above.
Bethel further discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 8, wherein the actuator (350) is configured to adjust a distance between the display (120 and 130) and the device seal (140 and 150; see paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 14, Bethel discloses a head-mountable device (HMD) (110), comprising:
a display (120 and 130);
a facial interface (140 and 150); and
an actuator (350) coupling the display to the facial interface (see Fig. 3B), the actuator comprising a motor configured to adjust a distance between the display and the facial interface (see paragraphs 0033-0034; despite not explicitly stating that actuator 350 comprises a motor, it must inherently have a motor since it is capable of adjusting eye relief distance in response to a user’s interaction with UI elements 314A-B).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindberg et al. (US 2023/0418076 A1), hereinafter Lindberg.
Regarding claim 2, Yee discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yee does not disclose that the first actuator comprises a motor.
Lindberg discloses a head-mountable electronic device (headset 102) having a slide system (154) comprising a motorized actuator (motor 162) configured to move a display (optical assembly 106; see paragraph 0022) closer to, and away from, a user’s eyes (see paragraph 0029-0030).
Yee and Lindberg are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Yee so that the second frame is coupled to the first frame by a slide system with a motorized actuator similar to that taught by Lindberg. Doing so would make eye-relief distance easier for a user to adjust.
Regarding claim 7, Yee discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yee does not disclose that the first actuator comprises a dial configured to adjust the distance when the dial is rotated.
Lindberg discloses a first actuator comprising a dial configured to adjust an eye-relief distance when the dial is rotated (see paragraph 0030 stating that a user may manually rotate an adjusting knob in order to change eye-relief distance).
Yee discloses the claimed invention except that the actuator comprises a sliding mechanism instead of a dial. Lindberg shows that a dial mechanism is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two actuating mechanisms were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a dial mechanism for a sliding mechanism.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bethel.
Yee discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Yee does not disclose that the spring is configured to increase the distance between the first frame and the second frame in response to a trigger by the head-mountable electronic device.
Bethel discloses a head-mountable electronic device (110) comprising a first frame (140 and 150) coupled to a second frame (120 and 130) by a first actuator (350). The first actuator (350) is configured to adjust a distance between the first frame (140 and 150) and the second frame (120 and 130) in response to a trigger by the head-mountable electronic device (see paragraph 0033-0034 describing how a user may change eye-relief distance by interacting with user interface 310; thus head-wearable device 110 must send some sort of trigger to actuator 350).
Bethel is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Yee so that its spring actuator mechanism can increase the distance between the first frame and the second frame in response to a trigger by the device. Doing so would allow for eye-relief distance to be adjusted by a graphical user interface (Bethel: see paragraphs 0033-0034).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethel as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yee.
Regarding claim 11, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Bethel does not disclose that the actuator is configured to adjust an angle of the display relative to the device seal.
Yee discloses a wearable electronic device (100) having a display (116), a device seal (110), and an actuator (230) configured to adjust an angle of the display relative to the device seal (see col. 14, lines 1-38 describing how multiple facial-interface adjustment apparatuses can be incorporated into the device; see for e.g. Fig. 6, showing a facial-interface adjustment apparatus 230 disposed in a forehead region and a facial-interface adjustment apparatus 230 disposed in a nasal region; since they are disposed opposite one another, operating one of them would adjust an angle of display housing 116 relative to facial interface 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Bethel so that the actuator is configured to adjust an angle of the display relative to the device seal. Doing so would make the device more customizable and provide greater comfort to a user.
Regarding claim 12, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Bethel further discloses that the actuator is a first actuator and the first actuator is configured to adjust a distance between the display and the device seal (see paragraph 0033-0034). Bethel does not disclose that the wearable electronic device further comprises a second actuator configured to adjust an angle of the display relative to the device seal.
Yee discloses a wearable electronic device (100) comprising first and second actuators (230 and/or 330). The second actuator is configured to adjust an angle of a display (116) relative to a device seal (110; see col. 14, lines 1-38 describing how multiple facial-interface adjustment apparatuses can be incorporated into the device; see for e.g. Fig. 6, showing a facial-interface adjustment apparatus 230 disposed in a forehead region and a facial-interface adjustment apparatus 230 disposed in a nasal region; since they are disposed opposite one another, operating one of them would adjust an angle of display housing 116 relative to facial interface 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Bethel to include a second actuator configured to adjust an angle of the display relative to the device seal. Doing so would allow both eye-relief distance and display angle to be adjusted, increasing customization and providing greater comfort to a user.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethel as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of McCracken et al. (US 2020/0341283 A1), hereinafter McCracken.
Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Bethel lacks a specific teaching that the actuator comprises a detent configured to maintain the position of the display relative to the device seal.
McCracken discloses a wearable electronic device (head-mounted display 100) having an actuator (actuator 304) comprising detents configured to lock the actuator’s position and prevent unwanted adjustment of the spacing between lenses and a user’s face (see paragraph 0042).
McCracken is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the actuator of Bethel to comprise at least one detent. Doing so would prevent unwanted movement between the display and the device seal (McCracken: see paragraph 0042).
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethel as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Parkinson et al. (US 2020/0019236 A1), hereinafter Parkinson.
Regarding claim 15, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Bethel lacks a specific teaching that the actuator is configured to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on an activity setting of the HMD.
Parkinson discloses a head-mountable device (see Figs. 2A-B) comprising actuators (actuators 32, 34, 38, and 40) configured to adjust a distance between a display (display 44) and a user’s eyes (eye 76; see paragraph 0033 stating that the actuators can move display 44 in the x, y, and z directions) based on an activity setting of the head-mountable device (from paragraph 0060: “Users may be permitted to save multiple preferred settings. If multiple settings are saved, the user may be able to use pre-set identifications or user-specified names for each setting, e.g., ‘bright light,’ ‘video,’ ‘work at height,’ etc. for ease of identifying which settings should be recalled for a particular task or circumstance. The system can then activate actuators 32, 34, 38, 40 to move display boom 26 or portions of display boom 26 to position display 44 accordingly.”).
Parkinson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Bethel so that the actuator is configured to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on an activity setting of the HMD. Doing so would make it easier for a user to adjust the position of the display based on different tasks in which the user may be engaging (Parkinson: see paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 16, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Bethel lacks a specific teaching that the actuator is configured to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on a body position of a user of the HMD.
Parkinson discloses a head-mountable device (see Figs. 2A-B) comprising actuators (32, 34, 38, and 40) configured to adjust a distance between a display (44) and a user’s eyes (eye 76; see paragraph 0033 stating that the actuators can move display 44 in the x, y, and z directions) based on a body position of a user of the HMD (see paragraph 0042-0043 describing how the head mounted display system may include accelerometers and/or gyroscopes to detect a user’s motion and move the display in response thereto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Bethel so that the actuator is configured to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on a body position of a user of the HMD. Doing so would provide means for the display to be adjusted hands-free (Parkinson: see paragraphs 0003 and 0062).
Regarding claim 17, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Bethel lacks a specific teaching that the HMD further comprises a sensor configured to provide feedback related to an environment around the HMD, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on the feedback from the sensor.
Parkinson discloses a head-mountable device (see Figs. 2A-B) comprising a sensor configured to provide feedback related to an environment around the HMD (see paragraph 0042 describing how the head mounted display system may include a microphone to detect sound), and actuators (32, 34, 38, and 40) configured to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on the feedback from the sensor (see paragraphs 0033 and 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Bethel to include a sensor configured to provide feedback related to an environment around the HMD (e.g. sound), wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on the feedback from the sensor. Doing so would allow for the display to be adjusted based on audible signals such as clapping or snapping (Parkinson: see paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 18, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Bethel lacks a specific teaching that the HMD further comprises a sensor configured to analyze facial features of a user of the HMD, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on the facial features of the user.
Parkinson discloses a head-mountable device (see Figs. 2A-B) comprising a sensor (input device 45) configured to analyze facial features of a user of the HMD, and actuators (32, 34, 38, and 40) configured to adjust the distance between a display and the user’s eyes based on the facial features of the user (see paragraph 0039-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Bethel to include a sensor configured to analyze facial features of a user of the HMD, and configure the actuator to adjust the distance between the display and the facial interface based on the facial features of the user. Doing so would allow the display to be adjusted automatically to the specific dimensions of a user’s face.
Regarding claim 20, Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Bethel lacks a specific teaching that the actuator is configured to adjust the distance based on a user profile associated with a respective user of the HMD.
Parkinson discloses a head-mountable device (see Figs. 2A-B) comprising actuators (32, 34, 38, and 40) configured to adjust a distance between a display (44) and a user’s eyes (eye 76; see paragraph 0033 stating that the actuators can move display 44 in the x, y, and z directions) based on a user profile associated with a respective user of the HMD (see paragraph 0060 describing how users may save multiple preferred settings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Bethel so that the actuator is configured to adjust the distance based on a user profile associated with a respective user of the HMD. Doing so would allow different users to each have their own eye-relief distance based on their personal preferences.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethel as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yee and Lanman et al. (US 2018/0239145 A1), hereinafter Lanman.
Bethel discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Bethel lacks a specific teaching that the HMD further comprises a sensor configured to detect a gaze of a user of the HMD and a second actuator configured to adjust a relative angle between the display and the facial interface based on the gaze of the user detected by the sensor.
Yee discloses a wearable electronic device (100) comprising first and second actuators (230 and/or 330). The second actuator is configured to adjust an angle of a display (116) relative to a device seal (110; see col. 14, lines 1-38 describing how multiple facial-interface adjustment apparatuses can be incorporated into the device; see for e.g. Fig. 6, showing a facial-interface adjustment apparatus 230 disposed in a forehead region and a facial-interface adjustment apparatus 230 disposed in a nasal region; since they are disposed opposite one another, operating one of them would adjust an angle of the display housing 116 relative to the facial interface 110).
Lanman discloses a head-mountable device having an actuator (varifocal element 804; see paragraph 0062) configured to adjust an optics block (104) based on a user’s gaze detected by a sensor (see paragraph 0037).
Yee and Lanman are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the device taught by Bethel to include a sensor configured to detect a gaze of a user of the HMD, and a second actuator configured to adjust a relative angle between the display and the facial interface based on the gaze of the user detected by the sensor. Doing so would reduce eye strain and make the device more comfortable for a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights