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 .
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 1, 18 and 19
Cancelled: 12-13
Added: 21-22
Therefore, claims 1-11 and 14-22 are currently pending in the instant application.
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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a restraint of a ride vehicle" in 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “a ride vehicle” is recited in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the office must respectfully disagree with an argument that the prior art does not disclose the limitations of claim 19. Lee clearly discloses the magnetic elements (Fig. 16 elements 413, 427, 423 and 429; Para. 0304). Furthermore, Lee discloses that the magnetic elements 413, 427, 423 and 429 are made of an electromagnet 414 (Para. 0311). Therefore, when the display is brought close to the main body, electromagnet 427 attracts magnetic element 413 (Fig. 17; Para. 0308). Hence, Lee teaches the limitation “wherein the electromagnet is configured to magnetically couple to the reaction material to transition the interface device and the visualization device into an engaged configuration”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0013228 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
As to claim 19, Lee (Fig. 14) discloses t method of operating an augmented reality, virtual reality, and/or mixed reality (AR/VR) system (100), the method comprising:
applying an interface device (400) to a head of a user,
wherein the interface device comprises a frame (Fig. 16 element 410) that supports a reaction material (413), and the reaction material comprises a metallic plate or a permanent magnet (Para. 0304); and
while the interface device is applied to the head of the user (Fig. 15),
applying a visualization device to the interface device (Fig. 14 element 300),
wherein the visualization device comprises a housing (Fig. 16 element 420) that supports an electromagnet (427, 414), wherein the electromagnet (414) is configured to magnetically couple to the reaction material (413) to transition the interface device and the visualization device into an engaged configuration (Fig. 17; Para. 0308, 0311-0312);
wherein applying the visualization device to the interface device (Fig. 17) comprises:
translating a respective portion of the housing (Fig. 14 element 300, top portion) that supports the electromagnet beneath a respective portion of the frame (400, lip of 400) that supports the reaction material to align the electromagnet and the reaction material (Fig. 17); and
adjusting, via a controller (Fig. 2 element 27), operation of the electromagnet of the visualization device to modulate a magnetic coupling force between the electromagnet and the reaction material of the interface device (Para. 0311-0312, 0320-0323).
As to claim 20, Lee (Fig. 14) discloses the method of claim 19, wherein applying the visualization device (300) to the interface device (400) comprises engaging a plurality of support grooves (Fig. 16 element 411, including the grooves of 415; Para. 0313) of the housing of the visualization device (420) with a plurality of support ribs (425, two teeth of the bracket 425; Para. 0304) of the frame of the interface device (400) while translating the respective portion of the housing that supports the electromagnet beneath the respective portion of the frame that supports the reaction material (Fig. 17; Para. 0308).
As to claim 21, Lee (Fig. 18) discloses the method of claim 19, comprising decoupling the visualization device from the interface device, wherein decoupling the visualization device from the interface device comprises:
adjusting, via the controller, operation of the electromagnet of the visualization device to modulate the magnetic coupling force between the electromagnet and the reaction material of the interface device to transition the interface device and the visualization device into a disengaged configuration (Para. 0330).
As to claim 22, Lee (Fig. 14) discloses the method of claim 19, wherein applying the visualization device (300) to the interface device (400) comprises:
determining that the visualization device has an initial engagement with the interface device based on sensor data (Para. 0316); and
in response to determining that the visualization device has the initial engagement with the interface device, energize the electromagnet to provide the magnetic coupling force between the electromagnet and the reaction material (Para. 0332-0333, the electromagnets are continued to provide coupling force when the shock is less than threshold).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of White et al. (US 9,933,624 B1; hereinafter “White”).
As to claim 1, Lee (Fig. 14) discloses an augmented reality, virtual reality, and/or mixed reality (AR/VR) system (100), comprising:
an interface device (400) configured to be worn by a user, wherein the interface device comprises a frame (Fig. 16 element 410) that supports a reaction material (413), and the reaction material comprises a metallic plate or a permanent magnet (Para. 0304);
a visualization device (Fig. 14 element 300) configured to display virtual features for visualization by the user (Para. 0303), wherein the visualization device comprises a housing (Fig. 16 element 420) that supports an electromagnet (414; Para. 0311), wherein the electromagnet is configured to magnetically couple to the reaction material (Fig. 17; Para. 0308); and
a controller (Fig. 2 element 27) electrically coupled to the electromagnet and configured to adjust operation of the electromagnet to modulate a magnetic coupling force between the electromagnet and the reaction material (Para. 0160, 0311-0312).
Lee does not disclose a cable configured to physically couple the visualization device to a ride vehicle to block separation of the visualization device from the ride vehicle, wherein the cable is configured to provide electric current to adjust the operation of the electromagnet to modulate the magnetic coupling force between the electromagnet and the reaction material.
However, White (Fig. 1) teaches a cable (113) configured to physically couple the visualization device (105) to a ride vehicle (Fig. 19) to block separation of the visualization device from the ride vehicle (Col. 8 lines 18-49), wherein the cable is configured to provide electric current to adjust the operation of the electromagnet to modulate the magnetic coupling force between the electromagnet and the reaction material (Col. 3 lines 48-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of White to couple the visualization device of Lee into a ride vehicle. The motivation would have been to provide individualized virtual reality to amusement park guests (White; Col. 1 lines 14-17).
As to claim 3, Lee (Fig. 14) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 1, wherein the frame of the interface device (400) comprises a body portion (the front body portion of 400) that extends between a first frame lateral portion (right side portion of 400) and a second frame lateral portion (left side portion of 400), and the reaction material (Fig. 16 element 410) is positioned along a lip (Fig. 16 element lip of the helmet 400) between the first frame lateral portion and the second frame lateral portion (Para. 0300).
As to claim 4, Lee (Fig. 14) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 3, wherein the housing of the visualization device (300) comprises a panel that extends between a first housing lateral portion (right side of 300) and a second housing lateral portion (left side of 300), and the electromagnet (Fig. 16 element 420) is positioned along the panel (Fig. 14 element 300) between the first housing lateral portion and the second housing lateral portion (Para. 0300).
As to claim 5, Lee (Fig. 14) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 4, wherein the panel (300) is configured to translate beneath the lip to align the electromagnet with the reaction material (the electronic device 300 is beneath the lip of the helmet 400).
As to claim 7, Lee (Fig. 16) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 1, wherein the frame of the interface device (410) comprises a plurality of support ribs (425, two teeth of the bracket 425; Para. 0304), the housing of the visualization device (420) comprises a plurality of support grooves (411, including the groove of 415; Para. 0313), and the plurality of support ribs is configured to engage the plurality of support grooves (Fig. 17; Para. 0308).
As to claim 8, Lee (Fig. 16) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the operation of the electromagnet (414) to attract the reaction material (413) to draw the visualization device (Fig. 16 element 300) toward the interface device (400) to facilitate engagement between the plurality of support ribs and the plurality of support grooves (Fig. 17).
As to claim 9, Lee discloses the AR/VR system of claim 1, wherein the visualization device comprises one or more transparent displays that enable the user to view the virtual features overlaid onto a real-world environment (Para. 0143, 0202).
As to claim 10, Lee discloses the AR/VR system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
determine that the visualization device has an initial engagement with the interface device based on sensor data (Para. 0160); and
in response to determining that the visualization device has the initial engagement with the interface device, energize the electromagnet to provide the magnetic coupling force between the electromagnet and the reaction material (Para. 0319).
As to claim 11, Lee (Fig. 16) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 10, wherein the visualization device comprises a visualization device permanent magnet (427) to provide the initial engagement with the interface device (410) while the electromagnet (414) is not energized (Para. 0304, 0308).
As to claim 14, Lee (Fig. 2) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 1, comprising a sensor (23) coupled to the housing of the visualization device (20; Para. 0152, 0153), wherein the sensor is configured to provide the controller with feedback indicative of a position of the visualization device relative to the interface device (Fig. 18; Para. 0316-0320, detachment or attachment of the display device), an orientation of the visualization device relative to the interface device, or both (Fig. 21), and the controller is configured to adjust the operation of the electromagnet based on the feedback (Para. 0321, 0333).
As to claim 15, Lee (Fig. 16) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to energize the electromagnet when the feedback indicates that the visualization device is within a threshold distance of the interface device (Fig. 17; Para. 0310-0312, the current is applied when the first coupler 410 and the second coupler 420 are coupled to each other), and wherein the controller is configured to de-energize the electromagnet when the feedback indicates that the visualization device is outside of the threshold distance of the interface device (Fig. 18; Para. 0312, the current is cut off to separate the display. Hence, the electromagnet remains de-energize when the display is detached from the main body 400. In this case, the display is interpreted to be “outside of the threshold distance of the interface”).
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and White as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Forster et al. (US 2020/0133009 A1, hereinafter “Forster”).
As to claim 2, Lee does not disclose the AR/VR system of claim 1, wherein the interface device comprises a head strap assembly that is configured to extend about a circumference of a head of the user.
However, Forster (Fig. 1) teaches wherein the interface device comprises a head strap (40) assembly that is configured to extend about a circumference of a head of the user (Para. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to simple substitute the HMD frame with the head strap of Forster for the helmet of Lee/White. The result of such a substitution would have yielded predictable results for attaching display device to the frame. .
As to claim 6, Lee does not disclose the AR/VR system of claim 4, wherein the first frame lateral portion comprises a first additional reaction material, the second frame lateral portion comprises a second additional reaction material, the first housing lateral portion comprises a first additional electromagnet that is configured to magnetically couple to the first additional reaction material, and the second housing lateral portion comprises a second additional electromagnet that is configured to magnetically couple to the second additional reaction material.
However, Forster (Fig. 15C) teaches wherein the first frame lateral portion comprises a first additional reaction material (1520a, left), the second frame lateral portion comprises a second additional reaction material (1520b, right), the first housing lateral portion comprises a first additional electromagnet (1530) that is configured to magnetically couple to the first additional reaction material (1520a, left), and the second housing lateral portion comprises a second additional electromagnet (1540) that is configured to magnetically couple to the second additional reaction material (1520, right; Para. 0115).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Forster to include a plurality of electromagnets and magnetic materials in the device disclosed by Lee/White. The motivation would have been to adjust the weight distribution of the HMD device (Forster; Para. 0115).
As to claim 16, Lee (Fig. 16) discloses the AR/VR system of claim 1, wherein the electromagnet (420) is one of a plurality of electromagnets (423, 429; Para. 0311) and the reaction material (410) is one of a reaction material (413), wherein the controller is configured to adjust operation of the plurality of electromagnets to magnetically engage with the plurality of reaction materials to impart a rotational torque to the visualization device about an axis of the visualization device to facilitate alignment between the visualization device and the interface device (Fig. 21; Para. 0310-0314, 0358, the electro-magnetic force has to be affected when the user adjusts the angle of the display device since the display and the main body are coupled by the electromagnetic force.).
Lee does not expressly disclose a plurality of reaction materials.
However, Forster teaches disclose a plurality of reaction materials (Fig. 15a elements 1520a; Para. 0110)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Forster to include a plurality of magnetic materials in the device disclosed by Lee/White. The motivation would have been to adjust the weight distribution of the HMD device (Forster; Para. 0115).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: see remarks filed on 07/27/2026.
Claim 17 is 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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Park et al. (US 2018/0154774 A1) discloses electromagnets to attach a display device (Para. 0322).
McCracken et al. (US 10,528,123 B2) discloses a cable to attach an HMD device to a ride vehicle.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
