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 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 byt he manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balsam et.al. (US 2023/0111835) (Nava K. Balsam) in view of Okano et al. (US 2021/0240250) (Keiichi Okano).
Regarding Claim 1, Balsam discloses a control method of an electronic device comprising a sensor configured to determine whether the electronic device is in a wearing state [See abstract and Paragraphs 18-19 and Fig 4 e.g. artificial reality headset being worn by the user], a camera configured to perform at least one of face tracking or eye tracking, and an infrared lamp configured to expose the camera [See abstract and Paragraphs 41-57 e.g. tracking an eye of the user through an eye sensor],
Balsam doesn’t explicitly disclose the control method comprising: determining whether the camera is in an on state: based on determining that the camera is in an off state, reading data of the sensor according to a preset period to determine whether the electronic device is in the wearing state; and based on determining that the camera is in the on state, triggering generation and reading of the data of the sensor using an interrupt signal
However, Okano discloses the control method comprising: determining whether the camera is in an on state: based on determining that the camera is in an off state, reading data of the sensor according to a preset period to determine whether the electronic device is in the wearing state [See abstract and Paragraphs 5, 40-48 and Figs. 4-5, 8]; and based on determining that the camera is in the on state, triggering generation and reading of the data of the sensor using an interrupt signal [See Paragraphs 27-32, 60-69 , 62-76 and Figs. 11-13].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Balsam to add the teachings in Okano as above, to provide a system that determines whether a state is at least any of a first state where the wearable optical device is mounted and usable and a second state where the wearable optical device is not used, controls a power supply state, based on the determination result, and achieves power saving.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 18, Balsam discloses wherein the sensor comprises a device emitting infrared light [ See Paragraphs 29-35 and Fig. 2A].
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19, Balsam discloses wherein the infrared lamp is disposed around a screen corresponding to a left eye or around a screen corresponding to a right eye [ See Fig. 2A].
Regarding Claims 7, 14 and 20, Balsam discloses wherein determining whether the camera is in the on state comprises: determining whether the camera is in the on state by reading an electrical signal of the camera [ See Paragraphs 29-35 and 40-48].
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSION B OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/TSION B OWENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487