DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 12/29/2025) with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered, but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 3, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read “a top surface of” (line 13)
Claim 3 should read “XR HMD device is worn” (l0ine 5)
Claim 7 should read “opposite to a portion of the nose bridge”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 USC 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.
6. Claims 3 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 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 USC 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant claims “wherein the XR HMD device is a goggle-type device.” However, applicant’s spec only mentions goggles one time, stating in [0055] that “The general shape and form of the HMD device 254…may be similar to a pair of wrap-around goggles.” The spec does not provide a standard for determining how/whether a device is “goggle-type,” other than that its “shape and form…may be similar to…goggles.” The applicant should remove this claim language or describe how it is supported by the spec, in order to avoid a 112(a) new matter rejection.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “goggles” as “an electronic apparatus that covers the eyes and is used to enhance vision (as at night) or to produce images (as of a virtual reality).” For the purposes of this Office action, eyewear which adheres to the above definition will be considered to be “goggle-type.”
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for identical issues of clarity.
Claims 10-15 and 17-20 inherit the issues of clarity posed by claims 9 and 16, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 114384709 A, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an extended reality (XR) ([0112]-[0113]) head-mounted display (HMD) device (Fig. 1, 100) comprising:
a processor ([0112]-[0113]);
a memory device ([0177]-[0178], which stores video/audio);
a power management unit (claim 18, battery);
an HMD video display to present to a user an extended reality image of an environment (Figs. 1 & 3, 800);
an HMD housing fitted to be formed around a user's eyes (Figs. 1-3, 200); and
a swappable (Fig. 2b) nose bridge (Figs. 1 & 5, 500) having a curved shape (Fig. 5, the temple and nose portions of 500 are each curved) with a bottom surface to contact and fit over a user’s nose when the XR HMD is worn (Fig. 5, bottom surface of the nose portion of 500) including:
a nose bridge extension (Figs. 5 & 12, 520) formed to extend upward from a top surface of the curved shape of the swappable nose bridge (Fig. 5, 520 extends up from a top of the curved nose portion), where the nose bridge extension is sized to fit for insertion into ([0152]) a cavity of a nose bridge slot formed into a bottom middle section of the HMD housing (Figs. 4-5 & 11, 520 fits into 370) for receiving the nose bridge extension extending from top surface of the swappable nose bridge (Fig. 2b); and
a nose bridge magnet formed at the nose bridge extension (Fig. 9, 560) to magnetically engage within the nose bridge slot formed in the bottom middle section of the HMD housing (Figs. 4 & 8, 560 magnetically engages with 340, which is within 370) and magnetically couple the swappable nose bridge within the cavity of the nose bridge slot (Figs. 9 & 11, 560 magnetically couples 500 within 370).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein the nose bridge extension is sized to create an interference fit within the nose bridge slot (Fig. 8, 320 & 540).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the nose bridge slot including a metal keep (Fig. 4, 340; [0130]) to magnetically engage with the nose bridge magnet (Figs. 8-9, 340 engages with 560) and to secure the position of the nose bridge magnet of the nose bridge extension (Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the nose bridge slot including a slot magnet formed into the nose bridge slot (Fig. 4, 340 is formed into 370), the slot magnet to magnetically engage with the nose bridge magnet (Figs. 8-9, 340 engages with 560).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 3, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pan (CN 214311112 U, of record).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Li discloses a nose bridge collar formed on the swappable nose bridge (Figs. 5 & 8, 510) to conform ([0127]) to a surface of the HMD housing (Fig. 4, 380), wherein the XR HMD device is a goggle-type device (Fig. 1) fitted around the user’s eyes ([0003]) and the interior of the HMD housing is between the XR HMD device and the user’s eyes when the XR HD device is worn by a user (Fig. 1).
Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the nose bridge collar causes an interior of the HMD housing to be lightproof.
However, Pan teaches a similar XR HMD (Abstract & Figs. 1-2), wherein a nose bridge collar is lightproof (Fig. 4, 6; [0017] & [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Pan such that the nose bridge collar caused the interior of the HMD housing to be lightproof, motivated by optimizing lighting conditions for the HMD.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Li discloses a swappable (Fig. 2b) nose bridge (Figs. 1 & 5, 500) of an extended reality (XR) ([0112]-[0113]) head mounted display (HMD) device (Fig. 1, 100) comprising:
a nose bridge extension (Figs. 5 & 12, 520) formed to extend from a top surface of the swappable nose bridge (Fig. 5, 520 extends from a top of the curved nose portion) and to fit for insertion into ([0152]) a nose bridge slot (Figs. 4 & 11, 370) formed into a cavity in a bottom surface (Figs. 4 & 11) of an HMD housing of the XR HMD device (Figs. 1-3, 200) for receiving the nose bridge extension extending from the top surface of the swappable nose bridge (Fig. 2b), wherein the XR HMD device is a goggle-type device (Fig. 1) fitted around a user’s eyes when worn by a user ([0003]);
a nose bridge magnet formed at the nose bridge extension (Fig. 9, 560) to magnetically engage within the nose bridge slot (Figs. 4 & 8, slot 370 holds magnet 340);
a nose bridge collar formed on the nose bridge (Figs. 5 & 8, 510) to conform ([0127]) to a surface of the HMD housing (Fig. 4, 380); and
nose bridge flaps sized to rest on a user's nose (Figs. 5-6 & 8, bottom portions of 510), wherein the interior of the HMD housing is between the XR HMD device and the user’s eyes when the XR HD device is worn by the user (Fig. 1).
Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the nose bridge collar causes the interior of the HMD housing to be lightproof.
However, Pan teaches a similar XR HMD (Abstract & Figs. 1-2), wherein a nose bridge collar is lightproof (Fig. 4, 6; [0017] & [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Pan such that the nose bridge collar caused the interior of the HMD housing to be lightproof, motivated by optimizing lighting conditions for the HMD.
Regarding claim 10, modified Li discloses wherein the nose bridge extension is sized to create an interference fit within the nose bridge slot (Li - Fig. 8, 320 & 540).
Regarding claim 12, modified Li discloses wherein the nose bridge magnet magnetically engages with a metal keep within the nose bridge slot in the HMD housing (Li - Fig. 9, 560 engages with 340) to secure the position of the nose bridge magnet in the nose bridge extension (Li - Figs 8-9).
Regarding claim 13, modified Li discloses the nose bridge magnet to magnetically engage with a slot magnet formed into the nose bridge slot of the HMD housing (Li - Figs. 11 & 12, 560 magnetically engages with 340), the slot magnet having an opposite polarity to the nose bridge magnet (Li - [0147]).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Li discloses an extended reality (XR) ([0112]-[0113]) head-mounted display (HMD) device (Fig. 1, 100) comprising:
a processor ([0112]-[0113]);
a memory device ([0177]-[0178], which stores video/audio);
a power management unit (claim 18, battery);
an HMD video display to present to a user an extended reality image of an environment (Figs. 1 & 3, 800);
an HMD housing (Figs. 1-3, 200) forming a goggle-type XR HMD device (Fig. 1) fitted to be formed around a user's eyes ([0003]), the HMD housing including a nose bridge slot (Figs. 4 & 11, 370) having a cavity formed in a center portion of a bottom surface of the HMD housing (Figs. 4 & 11) to operatively couple one of a plurality of swappable nose bridges to the HMD housing (Fig. 2b); and
a plurality of different sized swappable nose bridges (Fig. 2b & [0124]), each swappable nose bridge including:
a nose bridge extension (Figs. 5 & 12, 520) formed to extend from a top surface of the swappable nose bridge (Fig. 5, 520 extends from a top of the curved nose portion) and to fit for insertion into ([0152]) a cavity of the nose bridge slot formed into the bottom surface of the HMD housing (Figs. 4 & 11, of 370) for receiving the nose bridge extension extending from the top surface of the swappable nose bridges (Fig. 2b), wherein the nose bridge extension of each of the plurality of different sized swappable nose bridges is sized to create an interference fit within the nose bridge slot (Fig. 8, 320 & 540) formed in the center portion of the bottom surface of the HMD housing (Figs. 1-5).
Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the HMD housing prevents exterior light from interfering with the HMD video display presenting the extended reality image.
However, Pan teaches a similar XR HMD (Abstract & Figs. 1-2), which includes a nose bridge collar that is lightproof (Fig. 4, 6; [0017] & [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Pan such that the plurality of different sized swappable nose bridges were to include lightproof nose bridge collars which prevent exterior light from interfering with the HMD video display, motivated by optimizing lighting conditions for the HMD.
Regarding claim 17, modified Li discloses a nose bridge magnet formed at the nose bridge extension (Li - Fig. 9, 560) to magnetically engage within the nose bridge slot formed in the HMD housing (Li - Figs. 11 & 12, 560 magnetically engages with 340, which is within 370).
Regarding claim 18, modified Li discloses a nose bridge collar (Li - Figs. 5 & 8, 510) formed on each of the plurality of different sized swappable nose bridges (rejection of claim 16) to conform (Li - [0127]) to a surface of the HMD housing (Li - Fig. 4, 380) causing an interior of the HMD housing to be lightproof (Pan - Fig. 4, [0017], and [0023]), wherein the interior of the HMD housing is between the XR HMD device and the user’s eyes when the XR HD device is worn by the user (Li - Fig. 1).
11. Claims 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cazalet et al. (US 9291823 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 4, Li fails to explicitly disclose one or more nose bridge slits formed into the nose bridge where the user’s nose is to rest, the one or more nose bridge slits forming nose bridge flaps to conform to a surface of the user’s nose.
However, Cazalet teaches a similar XR (column 3 line 59) HMD (Abstract), wherein one or more nose bridge slits is formed into a nose bridge where a user’s nose is to rest (Figs. 13A-C, 424), the one or more nose bridge slits forming nose bridge flaps to conform to a surface of the user’s nose (Figs. 13A-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Cazalet such that the nose bridge flaps included slits, motivated by improving material efficiency.
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Su et al. (US 20230194899 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses wherein the nose bridge is around the nose bridge magnet (Fig. 9, 500 is around 560) with the nose bridge magnet being embedded into the nose bridge at an end of the nose bridge extension (Fig. 12, 560 is embedded in 500 at an end of 520) opposite to portion of the nose bridge extension formed at the top surface of the curved shape of the swappable nose bridge (Fig. 5).
Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the nose bridge is injection molded.
However, Su teaches a similar XR HMD (Abstract), wherein a nose bridge is injection molded (Figs. 6-7, 41 and 42; [0071]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Su such that the nose bridge was injection molded around the magnet, motivated by forming components integrally (Li - [0072]).
13. Claims 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Choo et al. (WO 2020056054 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Li fails to explicitly disclose a shape memory alloy structure embedded in the nose bridge to allow a portion of the nose bridge contacting the user’s nose to be elastically deformed into a position to conform to a shape of the user’s nose.
However, Choo teaches a similar XR ([0031]) HMD (Abstract), wherein a shape memory alloy structure is embedded into a nose bridge to allow a portion of the nose bridge contacting the user’s nose to be elastically deformed into a position to conform to a shape of the user’s nose (Fig. 13 & [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Choo such that a shape memory alloy structure was embedded in the nose bridge, in order to “accommodate different face widths” ([0064]).
14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pan, and further in view of Cazalet.
Regarding claim 11, modified Li fails to explicitly disclose a nose bridge slit formed into the nose bridge where the user’s nose is to rest, the nose bridge slit forming plural nose bridge flaps to conform to a surface of the user’s nose.
However, Cazalet teaches a similar XR (column 3 line 59) HMD (Abstract), wherein a nose bridge slit is formed into the nose bridge where the user’s nose is to rest (Figs. 13A-C, 424), the nose bridge slits forming plural nose bridge flaps to conform to a surface of the user’s nose (Figs. 13A-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Li and Cazalet such that the nose bridge flaps comprised a slit, motivated by improving material efficiency.
15. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pan, and further in view of Su.
Regarding claim 14, modified Li discloses wherein the nose bridge magnet is embedded into the nose bridge at the nose bridge extension (Fig. 12, 560 is embedded in 500 at 520).
Modified Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the nose bridge is injection molded with a silicone material.
However, Su teaches a similar XR HMD (Abstract), wherein a nose bridge is injection molded (Figs. 6-7, 41 and 42; [0071]-[0072]) with a silicone material ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Su such that the nose bridge was injection molded around the magnet, motivated by forming components integrally (Li - [0072]).
16. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pan, and further in view of Choo.
Regarding claim 15, modified Li fails to explicitly disclose a shape memory alloy structure embedded in the nose bridge to allow a portion of the nose bridge contacting the user's nose to be elastically deformed into a position to conform to a shape of the user's nose.
However, Choo teaches a similar XR ([0031]) HMD (Abstract), wherein a shape memory alloy structure is embedded into a nose bridge to allow a portion of the nose bridge contacting the user’s nose to be elastically deformed into a position to conform to a shape of the user’s nose (Fig. 13 & [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Choo such that a shape memory alloy structure was embedded in the nose bridge, in order to “accommodate different face widths” ([0064]).
17. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pan, and further in view of Cazalet et al. (US 9291823 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 19, modified Li discloses the plurality of different sized swappable noses bridges (Li - Fig. 2b).
Modified Li fails to explicitly disclose one or more nose bridge slits formed into each of the plurality of nose bridges where the user’s nose is to rest, the one or more nose bridge slits forming nose bridge flaps to conform to a surface of the user’s nose.
However, Cazalet teaches a similar XR (column 3 line 59) HMD (Abstract), wherein one or more nose bridge slits is formed into a nose bridge where a user’s nose is to rest (Figs. 13A-C, 424), the one or more nose bridge slits forming nose bridge flaps to conform to a surface of the user’s nose (Figs. 13A-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Li and Cazalet such that the nose bridge flaps included slits, motivated by improving material efficiency.
18. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Pan, and further in view of Choo et al. (WO 2020056054 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 20, modified Li fails to explicitly disclose a shape memory alloy structure embedded in each of the plurality of different sized swappable nose bridges to allow a portion of each of the plurality of different sized swappable nose bridges contacting the user’s nose to be elastically deformed into a position to conform to a shape of the user’s nose.
However, Choo teaches a similar XR ([0031]) HMD (Abstract), wherein a shape memory alloy structure is embedded into a nose bridge to allow a portion of the nose bridge contacting the user’s nose to be elastically deformed into a position to conform to a shape of the user’s nose (Fig. 13 & [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Li and Choo such that a shape memory alloy structure was embedded in the plurality of different sized swappable nose bridges, in order to “accommodate different face widths” (Choo - [0064]).
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872