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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1,11, and 20 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 8 that Zhang fails to teach a C-shaped housing with an opening, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Zhang fails to teach “an arm that includes a C-shaped housing defining an opening configured to hold electrical components, wherein the opening extends a length of the arm.” However, Zhang teaches that temple 110 comprises housing 402 which includes one or more elements that enclose a portion of temple 110 (Column 8 lines 51-56). In that the housing 402 of temple 110 encloses other elements, it is necessarily C-shaped. Furthermore, Figure 3 shows the internal opening of temple 110 that extends the length of the temple and holds electronics 406. Figure 3 also shows that the sides of housing 402 define the internal opening of the temple. Even if the housing is a hollow tube as posited by Applicant, the housing and an end piece that serves to enclose the elements within the temple would still constitute a C-shaped housing. Furthermore, Figures 3 and 4 clearly show the walls of the housing (a base wall where the internal components are mounted (Figure 4) and the side walls (top and bottom of temple in Figure 3)). In addition, as stated by the Applicant, Figure 4 does show a cross sectional view of the housing 402. Since Figure 4 is a cross section of the temple an opening must be present in order for all the internal components seen in Figure 4 to be present. Therefore, Zhang teaches “an arm that includes a C-shaped housing defining an opening configured to hold electrical components, wherein the opening extends a length of the arm” and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 8 that Zhang fails to teach a close-out cover coupled to the C-shaped housing, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Zhang fails to teach “a close out cover adhering to the C-shaped housing along the full length of the opening to seal the electrical components within the opening of the C-shaped housing of the arm of the head-mounted device.” Zhang teaches a close-out cover (Figure 5, component labeled housing cover in figure below, Column 9 lines 40-42) coupled to the C-shaped housing to seal the electrical components within the arm (Figure 5 shows electronics 406 within housing 402 of temple 110). Applicant further argues that the head contact piece (HCP) 114 cannot be the close out cover since it is fully separate from the housing 402 with a gap separating the HCP and housing. However, the Office action does not characterize HCP 114 as the close out cover but rather the portion of the housing labeled as “housing cover” in the figure below. Furthermore, Zhang distinguishes between the housing cover and the HCP stating “a speaker recess 412 is present in the housing 402. The BCS 112 is emplaced with the speaker recess 412.”
PNG
media_image1.png
381
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues that since the Office action acknowledges that Zhang fails to teach that the close out cover is adhered to the housing it cannot be a cover since a cover must adhere to the thing it covers. “Adhered to” implies the use of an adhesive but a cover can be attached to a housing by other means such as clips, welding, screws, or a friction fit. Since Zhang fails to explicitly teach the housing cover is adhered to the housing the teachings of Ma renders the adhering of the cover to the housing as obvious. Here Ma teaches a housing for electronics (Figure 2) with a close-out cover (Figure 2 upper cover 20, [0034]) adhering to the C-shaped housing (Figure 2 bottom shell 10, [0034]; [0036] bottom shell 10 is sealed to upper cover 20) along the length of the opening (Figure 3, [0037] sealing plate 21 and sealing groove 16 are provided at the periphery of bottom shell 10 and upper cover 20 to seal the length of the housing and isolate electrical cavity 30) Furthermore, Ma teaches sealing plate 21 and sealing groove 16 form a hermetic seal to make the housing water proof and prevent water vapor from entering the housing ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cover and housing taught by Zhang to be adhered together as taught by Ma in order to create a hermetic seal to make the housing water proof and prevent water vapor from entering the housing (Ma, Paragraph 0037). Thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 9 that Aguilera fails to disclose the anisotropic material constrains rotation about the long axis, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues Aguilera fails to teach “the close-out cover includes an anisotropic material to constrain rotation of the C-shaped housing about a long-axis of the arm of the head mounted device.” However, Aguilera teaches that layer 230 is the rear most surface of housing 50 and therefore is a cover for housing 50 (Column 4 lines 11-12). Aguilera also teaches that layer 230 is composed of graphite epoxy with carbon fibers aligned parallel to the long axis of the LCD to stiffen the panel (Column 4 lines 19-28). Furthermore, since layer 230 functions as a cover for housing 50, layer 230 would also stiffen housing 50 since they are connected and for an integral structure. Aguilera further describes the motivation of layer 230 in Column 1 lines 34-45 to prevent twisting of the LCD assembly which is a form of rotation. Given the anisotropic nature of carbon fibers, fibers aligned parallel to the long axis would constrain rotation about the axis perpendicular to the aligned fibers, which in the case of Aguilera would be short axis. Although layer 230 may be a structural layer rather than the cover of the housing taught by Aguilera, the broader teaching of Aguilera is still applicable. Aguilera teaches aligned fibers stiffen prevent twisting about an axis perpendicular to the aligned fibers applies and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the teachings of Aguilera to constrain rotation about the desired axis since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Aguilera also does not teach away from layer 230 being a cover since Aguilera states “the rearmost surface of rear layer 230 may be used as the rear-most surface of the upper housing 50” (column 4 lines 11-13). The mere option of having an additional overlayer as stated by the Applicant does not mean that layer 230 cannot be a cover nor does it teach away from the broader teaching of the use of aligned carbon fibers to constrain rotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Aguilera regarding the use of aligned carbon fibers to stiffen and prevent twisting of a housing to the close-out cover taught by Zhang. Thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner maintain the rejection of claims 1,11, and 20 over Zhang in view of Aguilera and Ma..
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11-14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,747,026 – hereinafter referred to as Zhang) in view of Aguilera (U.S. Patent No. 5,666,261) in further view of Ma (CN 210016411).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, claims 1 and 11 are substantially the same except that claim 11 also includes a frame configured to rest on the nose. Zhang teaches an arm for a head mounted device (Figure 2 temple 110), the arm comprising: a C-shaped housing (Figure 3 and 4, Column 8 lines 51-56 -in that the housing 402 of temple 110 encloses other elements, it is necessarily C-shaped) defining an opening (Figure 4 internal view of temple 110 which shows an opening defined by the three walls of housing 402) configured to hold electrical components (Figure 4 electronics 406), wherein the opening extends a length of the arm (Figure 4 components run length of arm); and a close-out cover (Figure 5, see figure below, Column 9 lines 40-42) coupled to the C-shaped housing along the full length of the opening to seal the electrical components within the opening of the C-shaped housing of the arm of the head-mounted device (Figure 5 is a cross section of the temple that shows electronics 406 within housing 402 of temple 110), wherein the close-out cover includes an anisotropic material (Column 4 lines 60-61, column 4 line 66 – column 5 line 2, housing cover of temple 110 (see figure below) may incorporate HCP 114 and HCP 114 may comprise carbon fiber which is a well-known anisotropic material thus the housing cover includes an anisotropic material) and regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches a frame configured to rest on a nose (Figure 3 frame 302, Column 6 lines 38-55).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang fails to teach using the anisotropic to constrain rotation of the C-shaped housing about a long-axis of the arm of the head mounted device. Aguilera is analogous art because Aguilera discloses a housing for electrical components (Figure 2A). Aguilera teaches using aligned carbon fibers to increase strength and elasticity (Column 2 line 65-Column 3 line 5 carbon fibers are orientated parallel to the long axis of the housing 50 to achieve the desired strength about the short axis; Figure 2A graphite layer 230, Column 4 lines 23-28 graphite fibers parallel to long axis of LCD 60 achieve desired stiffness about short axis) to prevent twisting and flexing (Column 1 lines 28-34 describes need to prevent twisting (rotation) that can damage components). Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this instance to prevent rotation about the long axis one would only need to align the fibers to be perpendicular to the long axis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing cover taught by Zhang with the aligned carbon fibers taught by Aguilera so as to increase the strength and rigidity of the housing to prevent twisting and flexing of the electronics housing (Aguilera, Column 2 line 65-Column 3 line 5, Column 1 lines 28-34).
Zhang and Aguilera fail to teach the close-out cover adhering to the C-shaped housing along the length of the opening, wherein the close-out cover includes a plurality of adhesive tabs extending in a perpendicular manner and allocated along a length of the close-out cover, the adhesive tabs providing a bonding surface to adhere the close-out cover to the C-shaped housing. However, Ma teaches a housing for electronics (Figure 2) with a close-out cover (Figure 2 upper cover 20, [0034]) adhering to the C-shaped housing (Figure 2 bottom shell 10, [0034]; [0036] bottom shell 10 is sealed to upper cover 20) along the length of the opening (Figure 3, [0037] sealing plate 21 and sealing groove 16 are provided at the periphery of bottom shell 10 and upper cover 20 to seal the length of the housing and isolate electrical cavity 30) and plurality of adhesive tabs (Figure 3 sealing plate 21, Figure 2 sealing plates on either side of the upper cover 20, [0037]) extending in a perpendicular manner (Figure 3 sealing plate 21 extends perpendicular to the top side of upper cover 20) and allocated along a length of the close-out cover ([0037] sealing plate 21 is provided at the periphery of the upper cover 20), the adhesive tabs providing a bonding surface to adhere the close-out cover to the C-shaped housing (Figure 3, [0037]-[0040] sealing plate 21 is inserted into sealing groove 16 with sealant to adhere upper cover 20 to bottom shell 10). Furthermore, Ma teaches sealing plate 21 and sealing groove 16 form a hermetic seal to make the housing water proof and prevent water vapor from entering the housing ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing taught by Zhang and Aguilera with the sealing plate taught by Ma in order to create a hermetic seal to make the housing water proof and prevent water vapor from entering the housing (Ma, Paragraph 0037).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, claims 2 and 12 are substantially the same. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang further teaches the anisotropic material is a carbon fiber composite (Column 4 line 66 – column 5 line 2, materials include carbon fiber which is well-known to be anisotropic.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, claims 3 and 13 are substantially the same. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 2 and 12. Zhang fails to teach stiffness along a fiber direction of carbon fiber in the carbon fiber composite is greater than a second stiffness of an axis of the carbon fiber that runs parallel to the long-axis of the arm. It is an inherent property of carbon fibers that the stiffness along the fiber length is greater than the stiffness across the fiber width. Aguilera teaches using aligned carbon fibers running the length of the housing cover (Column 2 line 65-Column 3 line 5) across the width of the fiber.
Incorporating the carbon fibers of Aguilera into Zhang would entail aligning the fibers in any directions in which one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to mitigate flexing or twisting. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the aligned fibers taught by Aguilera in the cover taught by Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma increase strength and rigidity to prevent twisting and flexing along the long axis of the electronics housing (Aguilera, Column 2 line 65-Column 3 line 5, Column 1 lines 28-34).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, claims 4 and 14 are substantially the same. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang further teaches the C-shaped housing is formed of a substantially isotropic material (Column 8 lines 54-56, plastics and metals are typical isotropic materials).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, claims 6 and 16 are substantially the same. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma fail to teach thickness of the close-out cover is between 0.15 mm and 0.4 mm. Aguilera does teach a cover thickness as little as 0.5 mm (Column 4 line 64 – column 5 line 2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cover taught by Aguilera thinner, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to make a thinner cover as thin and light are desirable properties for electronics (Aguilera Column 4 line 64 – column 5 line 2).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, claims 8 and 18 are substantially the same. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 1 and 11. Zhang and Aguilera fail to teach the adhesive tabs are on a perimeter of the close-out cover, wherein the adhesive tabs have a tab-height greater than half of a height of the C-shaped housing and wherein the C-shaped housing further includes a glue trough having a trough-depth at least half the height of the C-shaped housing, wherein the glue trough is configured to accept an adhesive and the adhesive tabs. Ma teaches adhesive tabs on a perimeter of the close-out cover (Figure 3 sealing plate 21), wherein the adhesive tabs have a tab-height greater than half of a height of the C-shaped housing (Figure 3 sealing plate 21 is a least half the height of the housing) and wherein the C-shaped housing further includes a glue trough having a trough-depth at least half the height of the C-shaped housing, wherein the glue trough is configured to accept an adhesive and the oversized adhesive tabs (Figure 3 sealing groove 16 is at least half the height of the housing, Paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing taught by Zhang and Aguilera with the sealing plate and groove taught by Ma in order to create a hermetic seal to make the housing water proof and prevent water vapor from entering the housing (Ma, Paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Zhang further teaches the arm includes a rounded end configured to be placed behind an ear of a user of the head mounted device (Figure 3 rounded earpiece 318, Column 8 lines 7-16), and wherein the arm includes a hinge end opposite the rounded end, the hinge end configured to be coupled to a frame of the head mounted device (Figure 3 rounded earpiece 318 opposite hinge 310, Column 7 lines 31-37).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is substantially the same as claim 11 except that claim 20 further includes a near-eye display system configured to present virtual images to an eyebox region. Zhang in combination with Aguilera and Ma teach a frame configured to rest on a nose; and at least one arm coupled to the frame, wherein the at least one arm includes: a C-shaped housing defining an opening configured to hold electrical components that support the near-eye display system, wherein the opening extends a length of the arm; and a close-out cover adhering to the C-shaped housing along the length of the opening to seal the electrical components within the arm, wherein the close-out cover includes an anisotropic material to constrain rotation of the C-shaped housing about a long-axis of the arm of the head mounted display and wherein the close-out cover further includes a plurality of adhesive tabs extending in a perpendicular manner along a length of the close-out cover, the adhesive tabs providing a bonding surface to adhere the close-out cover to the C-shaped housing as discussed above in the rejections of claims 1 and 11. Zhang also teaches a near-eye display system configured to present virtual images to an eyebox region (Column 18 lines 23-46).
Claims 5, 7, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Patent No. 10,747,026), Aguilera (U.S. Patent No. 5,666,261), and Ma (CN 210016411) as applied to claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 above, and further in view of Border et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,018,837 – hereinafter referred to as Border).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, claims 5 and 15 are substantially the same. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 4 and 14. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma fail to teach the isotropic material includes glass-filled nylon. Border is analogous art because Border discloses a head mounted device. Border teaches using glass-filled nylon (Column 109 lines 25-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention construct the housing taught by Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma out of glass-filled nylon as taught by Border so as make the housing stiffer and provide electrical resistance (Border, Column 109 lines 25-29).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, claims 7 and 17 are substantially the same. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 6 and 16. Zhang further teaches at least one rib in the housing (Figure 4 structural ribs 410, Column 9 lines 11-13). Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma fail to teach the at least one cross rib substantially parallel to a plane that is orthogonal to the long-axis of the arm of the head mounted device, the at least one cross rib rising up from the base-thickness and fitting within the C-shaped housing. Border teaches least one cross rib substantially parallel to a plane that is orthogonal to the long-axis (Column 108 lines 30-36, “may have ribs… which may connect each of structure’s sides together”). The ribs taught by Border are within the housing rather on than a cover. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the structural ribs taught by Zhang in the cover taught by Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma to be perpendicular to the long-axis as taught by Border in order to achieve a rigid design with high stiffness, low weight, and a high amount of openness (Border, Column 108 lines 32-36) and moving the ribs from the housing to the to cover involves only routine skill in the art and would affect the function of the housing. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Patent No. 10,747,026), Aguilera (U.S. Patent No. 5,666,261), and Ma (CN 210016411) as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0036090 – hereinafter Hayashi).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, claims 9 and 19 are substantially the same. Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claims 8 and 18. Ma further teaches a hermetic seal ([0037]), a second sealing member (Figure 3 sealing member in second sealing groove 221, [0041]), and an adhesive ridge (Figure 3 top of pressing portion 17 can be considered a ridge). Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma fails to teach a hermetic sealant that is different from the adhesive. Hayashi teaches a hermetic sealant that is different from the adhesive (Figure 1 adhesives 21 and 22, Paragraph [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing as taught by the combination of Zhang, Aguilera, and Ma using the two adhesives as taught by Hayashi. Using two different adhesives would allow the adhesives to have different curing properties to allow air to escape between the two adhesives and form a hermetic seal (Hayashi [0114]-[0121]).
Conclusion
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 ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached on (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872