CTNF 18/910,366 CTNF 80447 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Alton US 20150309312 . Regarding claim 1, Alton teaches a head-mounted display system comprising: a near-eye display configured to present images to a user's eye; one or more side shields (fig. 2A see-through diming panel 202) configured to fill gaps between the user's face and peripheries of the near-eye display, wherein the one or more side shields are at least partially transparent to visible light and are dimmable using an electrical control signal; and a controller (processing unit 104) configured to control dimming of the near-eye display and the one or more side shields. Regarding claim 2, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 1, wherein the controller (processor 104) is configured to: gradually dim the near-eye display without causing a noticeable change of perceived brightness by the user's eye; and gradually dim the one or more side shields while gradually dimming the near-eye display. MPEP 2144 section II cites: II. MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.) The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations. Regarding claim 3, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to gradually dim the near-eye display based on a temporal luminance change curve that specifies a luminance level of the near-eye display as a function of time. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 4, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 3, wherein the temporal luminance change curve specifies a process of decreasing or increasing the luminance level of the near-eye display as a function of time. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 5, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 3, wherein the temporal luminance change curve specifies a plurality of luminance levels of the near-eye display and a corresponding duration of each luminance level of the plurality of luminance levels for the user's eye to adapt to the luminance level. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 6, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to dim the near-eye display and the one or more side shields at a same rate in each dimming step of a plurality of dimming steps. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 7, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 2, further comprising an eye tracking subsystem (fig. 5 eye tracking camera 534B)configured to detect eye blinks, wherein the controller is configured to dim the near-eye display and the one or more side shields at a higher rate during the eye blinks than during other time. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 8, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 1, further comprising: at least one ambient light sensor configured to measure a luminance and/or a spectrum of ambient light of the head-mounted display system, wherein the controller is configured to control the dimming of the one or more side shields based at least in part on the luminance and/or the spectrum of the ambient light of the head-mounted display system. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 9, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to gradually dim the one or more side shields based on the luminance of the ambient light and a temporal transmissivity change curve that specifies a transmissivity of the one or more side shields as a function of time. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 10, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to reduce transmissivity of the one or more side shields in response to an increase of the luminance of the ambient light of the head-mounted display system. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 11, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to: determine a spectrum of light within the head-mounted display system; determine a difference between the spectrum of the ambient light and the spectrum of the light within the head-mounted display system; and dim the one or more side shields based on the difference such that a color temperature (device can measure color shift and spectral response [0081]) of the ambient light dimmed by the one or more side shields matches a color temperature of the light within the head-mounted display system. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 12, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to determine the spectrum of the light within the head-mounted display system based on one or more values of the near-eye display. The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 13, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 12, wherein the one or more values of the near-eye display include pixel color values, pixel control voltage values, pixel drive current values, light source control voltage values, light source drive current values, or a combination thereof ([0048]) . The controller of Alton would appear to meet all the structural limitations implied by the claim limitations (see MPEP 2144 above). Regarding claim 14, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more side shields comprises an active dimming element formed in or on a substrate (electrochromic or electro-optical elements [0037]-[0038]). Regarding claim 15, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 14, wherein the active dimming element includes an electrochromic material [0038] or a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) film. Regarding claim 16, Alton teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 1, wherein the near-eye display includes a virtual reality display, an optical see-through augmented reality display, or a video see-through augmented reality display [0020]. Regarding claim 17, Alton teaches a processor-implemented method comprising: obtaining a luminance and/or a spectrum of ambient light of a head-mounted display (HMD) system using one or more ambient light sensors [0022]; gradually dimming a near-eye display of the HMD system without causing a noticeable change of perceived brightness by a user's eye [0030][0046]; and based at least in part on the luminance and/or the spectrum of the ambient light of the HMD system, changing a transmissivity of one or more side shields that are dimmable and are configured to fill gaps between the user's face and peripheries of the near-eye display [0033]. Regarding claim 18, Alton teaches the processor-implemented method of claim 17, wherein gradually dimming the near-eye display of the HMD system comprises gradually dimming the near-eye display based on a temporal luminance change curve that specifies a luminance level of the near-eye display as a function of time for the user's eye to adapt to the luminance level. Since Alton’s device measures brightness [0022] the limitation of a temporal luminance change curve over a function of time and changes the dimming based off ambient brightness this limitation is considered met. Gradual dimming is considered met as there is not specificity to the rate and any active dimmer such as the one of Alton will have some sort of response time and this is considered gradual . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alton US 20150309312 in view of Kono WO2021157246 . Regarding claim 20, Alton teaches the processor-implemented method of claim 17, but does not teach obtaining eye blink information; and dimming the near-eye display and the one or more side shields at a higher rate during eye blinks than during other time. Kono teaches obtaining eye blink information; and dimming the near-eye display and the one or more side shields at a higher rate during eye blinks than during other time (page 8 last paragraph to page 9 1 st paragraph) to enable a user controllable dimming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alton in view of Kono to enable a user controllable dimming. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F. 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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. /PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/910,366 Page 2 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/910,366 Page 3 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/910,366 Page 4 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/910,366 Page 5 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/910,366 Page 6 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/910,366 Page 7 Art Unit: 2871
Prosecution Insights