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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 6/9/2026.
The submission, however, is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because the amendments again fail to completely address/rectify issues brought to Applicant’s attention in both the 9/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection and 4/9/2026 Final Rejection. As discussed below, several issues remain outstanding due to the impropriety of the amendments which – besides introducing new errors or failing to rectify those already identified – further reintroduces errors to the specification that were already noted in the earlier office action(s), and that were at least partially addressed by prior amendments, to the detriment of efficient prosecution.
Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, Examiner accepts the current amendment as adequate reply and acts upon it below. However, Applicant is advised that amendments should be checked thoroughly for compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 to maintain a clear record, to avoid non-entry of amendments, and to prevent persistent/recurring issues that unnecessarily hinder prosecution efforts.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 6/9/2026.
Cancellation of claims 16-21, filed 6/9/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to claims 1 and 3, filed 6/9/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the specification, filed 6/9/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claim 15, filed 12/9/2025, remains in effect.
Due to the amendments, the previous claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Despite amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification are maintained because, as noted above, the corresponding amendments are not fully responsive as they only partially address informalities Examiner identified in the previous office actions or reintroduce errors that were already (at least partially) addressed in prior submissions. Examiner notes also that Applicant appears not to have made any further attempt to rectify other issues that Applicant was informed (¶ 4 of the 9/19/2026 Non-Final Rejection, ¶ 10 of the 4/9/2026 Final Rejection) may be present throughout the specification. Additional issues are identified in the updated objection below, but Applicant is again advised that this list of issues is not exhaustive.
Response to Arguments
On pg. 13 of the Remarks, filed 6/9/2026, Applicant's assertion regarding claim 1’s thermal conductivities have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended limitations, filed 6/9/2026, not the Final Rejection, filed 4/9/2025. Newly amended limitations are argued below.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 6/9/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pgs. 13-14 of the Remarks, Applicant appears to argue that because
“Liao discloses that the a [sic] spring structure is disposed inside the wearing member”,
they
‘cannot disclose the claimed restoring member because it is not "disposed on the outer case and a portion of the restoring member is accommodated in a recess’.
Examiner disagrees, noting that Liao’s ¶ 53 – as cited by Applicant – plainly states that
“the other end of the tension spring 21 is connected to an inner side of the corresponding glasses leg 2”
where Liao’s glasses leg 2 is hollow on an interior side, providing a recess through which Liao’s tension spring 21 attaches directly to the inner side of glasses leg 2. Clearly also, this side of Liao’s glasses leg 2 has an exterior-facing surface, such that it can be mapped to the outer case. As such, the Liao’s tension spring 21 is disposed on the outer case while also being partially accommodated in the recess, just as required for the claimed/mapped restoring member.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
¶s 106 and 122, have been amended such that they now essentially paraphrase/clarify the 2/23/2023 specification’s correspondingly numbered paragraphs. Applicant has thus apparently circled back and restored the same substantive deficiencies previous identified by Examiner – i.e. that geometric descriptions for the 1-1th and 1-2th frames contradict what is described/shown elsewhere in the disclosure (¶s 79-80, FIG. 6).
See also ¶ 4L and ¶ 9 of the Non-Final Rejection filed 9/19/2025 (identifying/ explaining the issue with respect to the 2/3/2023 specification’s ¶s 106 and 122, and with respect to the 2/3/2023 version of claims 3 and 19).
See also ¶ 10G and ¶ 19 of the Final Rejection filed 4/9/2026 (pointing out that the issue was only partially addressed in the 12/19/2025 specification’s ¶s 106 and 122 (while further confusing the issue by relabeling things in an inappropriate and inconsistent manner, resulting in unclear and disjointed terminology) – and also pointing out that the issue was only partially addressed in the 2/3/2023 version of claim 3, while the issue remained entirely unaddressed in the 2/3/2023 version of claim 19).
¶s 108 and 123, have been amended such that they now essentially paraphrase/clarify the 2/23/2023 specification’s correspondingly numbered paragraphs. Applicant has thus apparently circled back and restored the same substantive deficiencies previous identified by Examiner – i.e. that the geometric description for the 2-2th frame contradict what is described/shown elsewhere in the disclosure (¶s 79-80, FIG. 6).
See also ¶ 4M and ¶ 10 of the Non-Final Rejection filed 9/19/2025 (identifying/ explaining the issue with respect to the 2/3/2023 specification’s ¶s 108 and 123, and with respect to the 2/3/2023 version of claims 5 and 20).
See also ¶ 10H and ¶ 22 of the 4/9/2026 Final Rejection (noting only a separate clarity/grammar issue remained in the 12/19/2025 specification’s ¶s 108 and 123, i.e. after Applicant’s attempt to correct the noted issue of contradictory descriptions – and also pointing out that Applicant had introduced yet a separate issue into the 2/3/2023 version of claim 20, again after attempting to correct the noted issue of contradicting descriptions)
In ¶ 95, line 4, “restoring member 292c” is inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph assigning reference numeral 229c to the restoring member
In ¶ 99, lines 1-3, “the issue that the wearing member hits the user's face when wearing due to securing the rigidity of the front surface of the wearable electronic device 200” is ungrammatical and incoherent
In ¶ 100, lines 2-4, “the issue of when the wearing member hits the user's face when wearing due to securing the rigidity of the front surface of the wearable electronic device 200” remains ungrammatical and incoherent
Examiner again notes this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should
be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Applicant is further advised that, in response to the above objections, a substitute specification excluding the claims will be required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a), because the number or nature of the amendments (through multiple rounds of revision, incomplete corrections, rectification then subsequent reintroduction of issues, etc.) renders it difficult to consider the application or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, 37 CFR 1.125.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
phrase In claim 1, line 25, the comma is improper and should likely be a colon instead
In claim 1, line 26, there appears to be a stray hyphen at the start of the line
In claim 1, lines 25-36, the list grouping/structure is unclear, largely due to misapplication of indentations; the limitations on lines 26-30 may need one additional indentation applied, while the remaining limitations on lines 31-36 may need two additional indentations as they appear to be sub-limitations grouped under the limitation on lines 29-30 (which should apparently end in a colon to initiate the sub-limitation list)
Claims not specifically addressed in the objections above inherit the objections of the claim from which they depend. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, lines 2-4 recite “a [first, second] portion of the first frame” despite having already introduced such features in the previous claim 3. The phrases are thus overloaded with multiple introductions, causing ambiguity as to whether each “[first, second] portion” refers to a common feature or distinct ones. For examination purposes, claim 4’s recitations shall be read as “the [first, second] portion of the first frame”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele and Olivieri (US 20190041666 A1, hereinafter “Abele”) in view of Ardisana et al (US 20200204787 A1, hereinafter “Ardisana”), Tzvieli et al (US 20210318558 A1, hereinafter Tzvieli – note the earlier filing date of 4/8/2020, claimed via parent application US 63006827 which discloses all of the temple structures applied towards the rejection below), Liao (US 20170371164 A1), and Wang (CN 210605214 U).
Regarding claim 1, Abele discloses (see FIG. 1(A-C), FIG. 2A; ¶s 20-48) a wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100), comprising:
a display (first/second lenses 110/112 with projection system 142) configured to provide visual information to a user (as described in ¶ 26);
a lens frame (frame 102) comprising (see also annotated FIG. 1B below):
a first frame (i.e. including frame 102’s rear and outer sections), and
a second frame (i.e. including frame 102’s front and inner sections),
wherein the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear+outer sections) and the second frame (i.e. frame 102’s front+inner sections) surrounds at least a portion of the display (first/second lenses 110/112 with projection system 142), the second frame (i.e. frame 102’s front+inner sections) being coupled to the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear+outer sections) to form an internal space (“cavity”) of the wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100);
a wearing member (first/second stems 104/106) coupled (via hinge 130) to at least one side of the lens frame (frame 102), the wearing member (first/second stems 104/106) comprising an inner case and an outer case, and the inner case is configured to face the user's head when the wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100) is worn by the user;
a flexible printed circuit board (circuit board 204) disposed within the internal space (“cavity”);
a hinge structure (hinge 130) rotatably connecting the lens frame (frame 102) to the wearing member (first/second stems 104/106). (¶ 23: “the first stem 104 and the second stem 106 are pivotally coupled to the frame via a hinge 130”).
(Regarding item B and D’s internal space and flexible printed circuit board disposed within the internal space – note the following excerpts:
¶ 48: “Although the head-wearable apparatus 100 of the illustrated example includes circuit boards 204 to define the frame 102 […] the frame 102 […] may be formed via a first housing removably coupled to a second housing”, “The circuit boards 204 […] may be positioned or inserted in a cavity formed by the first housing and the second housing”
¶ 47: “the circuitry 200 (e.g., circuit boards 204 and/or the electronic components 132) may be formed via flexible, plastic substrates […] printed circuit boards, […]”
¶s 32, 36: "the electronic components 132 of the head-wearable apparatus 100 are hidden or provided in a contour or shape of the frame 102 [...]", "the frame 102 of the illustrated example may be hollow and/or may include one or more cavities or channels to receive (e.g., route) electrical contacts, electrical wires, and/or other electrical circuitry and/or may include conductive traces or inks to electrically couple the first stem 104 (e.g., the projection system 142) and the second stem 106 (e.g., the power source 146)", "the circuitry 200 of the illustrated example is formed on one or more circuit boards 204."
Regarding item C’s inner/outer case structure for the wearing member, note that ¶ 48’s housings apply not only to frame 102, but to both the first/second stems 104/106 as well: “[the frame 102,] the first stem 104 and the second stem 106 may be formed via a first housing removably coupled to a second housing”. Interior/exterior portions of housing may thus correspond to the inner/outer case.)
[AltContent: textbox ((Top panel) FIG. 1B of Abele is annotated to highlight various features.(Bottom panel) Schematic cross-section of Abele’s frame 102 is drawn to highlight its bends/L-shapes.)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
1377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Abele does not disclose:
a wearing member wherein the inner case comprises a first thermal conductivity, the outer case comprises a second thermal conductivity, the first thermal conductivity is lower than the second thermal conductivity,
a reinforcing member configured to have a higher rigidity than the lens frame and extending along the first frame or the second frame to surround at least the portion of the display,
a hinge structure comprising a restoring member positioned between the lens frame and the wearing member,
wherein the reinforcing member comprises:
a first portion disposed between the flexible printed circuit board and the first frame, and
a second portion extending from the first portion by a predetermined angle to form a bend along the first frame,
wherein the wearing member comprises,
a first rigid portion coupled to the lens frame and formed by a first portion of the inner case and a first portion of the outer case,
a flexible portion coupled to the first rigid portion, and
a second rigid portion coupled to the flexible portion and formed by a second portion of the inner case and a second portion of the outer case, wherein
the flexible portion accommodates a wire extending from the first rigid portion to the second rigid portion across the flexible portion, and
when the wearing member is in an unfolded state, the restoring member is disposed on the outer case and a portion of the restoring member is accommodated in a recess formed in the first rigid portion of the outer case such that the hinge structure prevents the wearing member from being rotated about the lens frame by a second predetermined angle or more.
Abele and Ardisana commonly relate to head-mounted displays.
Ardisana discloses (see FIGs. 1(A-D), ¶s 16-31):
a reinforcing member (“crossbar”) configured to have a higher rigidity than the lens frame (central frame portion 16) and extending along the first frame or the second frame (“along line 23”) to surround at least the portion of the display (“optical elements”),
wherein the reinforcing member (“crossbar”) comprises:
a first portion disposed between the flexible printed circuit board (“plastics material” which “embeds core wire 24”) and the first frame (central frame portion 16).
(¶ 31: “a crossbar (e.g. metal) may be integrated in the frames along line 23 to limit the flexure of the frames”)
Abele and Tzvieli commonly relate to head-mounted displays.
Tzvieli discloses (see FIG. 1A, 1B and ¶s 61-66, 79-82 detailing related/overlapping embodiments and features)
wherein the wearing member (“temple”) comprises,
a first rigid portion (first portion 32) coupled to the lens frame (front element 30) and formed by a first portion of the inner case (dismountable cover 42) and a first portion of the outer case (i.e. the rest of first portion 32’s hollow mechanical structure 43),
a flexible portion (second portion 33) coupled to the first rigid portion (first portion 32), and
a second rigid portion (third portion 34) coupled to the flexible portion (second portion 33) and formed by a second portion of the inner case (dismountable cover 44) and a second portion of the outer case (i.e. the rest of third portion 34’s hollow mechanical structure 43), wherein
the flexible portion (second portion 33) accommodates a wire (electric wires 37) extending from the first rigid portion (first portion 32) to the second rigid portion (third portion 34) across the flexible portion (second portion 33).
Abele and Liao commonly relate to head-mounted displays.
Liao discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, annotated below, and ¶s 45-53)
a hinge structure comprising a restoring member (tension spring 21) positioned between the lens frame (glasses frame 1) and the wearing member (glasses legs 2),
[AltContent: textbox (Liao’s FIG. 1 (right) and FIG. 2 (left) enlarging portion A of FIG. 1 are annotated to highlight various features.)]
PNG
media_image5.png
733
1432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein when the wearing member (glasses legs 2) is in an unfolded state, the restoring member (tension spring 21) is disposed on the outer case (i.e. glasses legs 2’s exterior facing shell) and a portion of the restoring member (tension spring 21) is accommodated in a recess (see FIG. 2) formed in the first rigid portion (i.e. formed closest to glasses frame 1) of the outer case (i.e. of glasses legs 2) such that the hinge structure prevents the wearing member (glasses legs 2) from being rotated about the lens frame (glasses frame 1) by a second predetermined angle or more. (See also ¶ 36: “When the glasses legs [2] are fully unfolded and limited by limiting portions, the tension spring [21] can prevent each of the glasses legs [2] from rotating outward”)
Abele and Wang commonly relate to head-mounted displays.
Wang discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶ 37-58) a wearing member (temple 200) wherein the inner case (inner shell 250 with attached heat insulation element) comprises a first thermal conductivity, the outer case (outer shell 240 with heat-conducting element 600) comprises a second thermal conductivity, the first thermal conductivity is lower than the second thermal conductivity.
The collection/combination of prior art thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for a second portion extending from the first portion by a predetermined angle to form a bend along the first frame. However, Examiner finds that such features may only amount to a mere change in shape and/or mere rearrangement of the reinforcing member (Ardisana’s “crossbar”). Examiner notes also that such (1) change in shape, i.e. to form a bend in the reinforcing member, and (2) rearrangement, i.e. of the reinforcing member so as to be positioned against and to bend along the first frame, both represent only basic design options that may naturally be pursued to conform to the already bent edges of Abele’s frame 102 (see the schematic cross section of frame 102 in the above annotated FIG. 1B’s bottom panel), provide top- and user-side protection of underlying elements, etc.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abele’s frame with Ardisana’s crossbar, in order to control the frame’s flexure and any movement between attached headset components (Ardisana ¶ 31).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abele with temple design aspects of Tzvieli, in order to improve fit and comfortability during prolonged periods of use, and to account for weight of additional electronic components (Tzvieli ¶s 58-59).
It would have further been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abele with Liao’s “limiting portions” (i.e. including Liao’s tension spring 21) in order to improve clamping intensity and stability of the wearable device (Liao ¶ 53)
It would have additionally been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Abele with insulating materials for the inner case, as taught by Wang, in order to manage heat generated by the device and improve user experience (Wang ¶s 50, 54).
It would have then been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt a bent shape for the crossbar, in order to conform to the already bent edges of Abele’s frame – since it has been held that changes in size or shape are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It would have likewise been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to then position the bent crossbar to bend along the first frame, again to conform to the already bent edges of Abele’s frame, and also to protect underlying elements, provide convenient access to the reinforcing member, etc. – since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1.
Abele further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B above):
wherein the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear+outer sections) is configured to face a first direction corresponding to the user's face when the wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100) is worn by the user, and
wherein the second frame (i.e. frame 102’s front+inner sections) is configured to (i) face a second direction opposite to the first direction when the wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100) is worn by the user and (ii) be coupled to the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear+outer sections) such that the second frame (i.e. frame 102’s front+inner sections) is disposed in the second direction with respect to the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear+outer sections).
Regarding claim 3, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 2.
Abele further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B above) wherein a first portion of the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s outer section) forms an outermost frame of the wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100), and a second portion of the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear section) extends from the first portion of the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s outer section) toward a direction perpendicular to the first direction to face the user's face.
Regarding claim 4, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 3.
Abele, modified by Ardisana in the manner described above, also satisfies wherein the first portion of the reinforcing member (“crossbar” of Ardisana’s ¶ 31) is arranged to at least partially face a first portion of the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s outer section in Abele’s FIG. 1B) in a third direction, and the second portion of the reinforcing member (“crossbar” of Ardisana’s ¶ 31) is arranged to at least partially face a second portion of the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear section in Abele’s FIG. 1B) in the first direction. (See the lower panel of Abele’s annotated FIG. 1B above. Upon importing Ardisana’s reinforcing member (“crossbar”) and providing it with a bend to conform to the already bent edges of Abele’s frame 102 – as established/motivated in regards to claim 1 above – the reinforcing member will always have a (first) portion facing the third direction and another (second) portion facing the first direction, as labeled in the annotated figure.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 2.
Abele further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B above) wherein a first portion of the second frame (i.e. frame 102’s inner section) comprises a seating portion (in frame 102’s first/second rims 116/118) configured to seat the display (first/second lenses 110/112 with projection system 142) and a second portion of the second frame (i.e. frame 102’s front section) extends from the first portion of the second frame (i.e. frame 102’s inner section) towards a direction perpendicular to the second direction.
Regarding claim 6, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1.
Abele further discloses wherein the flexible printed circuit board (circuit board 204) is disposed on the second frame (i.e. frame 102’s front+inner sections).
Abele, modified by Ardisana in the manner described above, also satisfies wherein the first portion of the reinforcing member (“crossbar” of Ardisana’s ¶ 31) is disposed between the flexible printed circuit board (circuit board 204) and the first frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear+outer sections) (as already established in regards to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1.
Abele further discloses wherein at least one component (electronic components 132) electrically connected with the flexible printed circuit board (circuit board 204) is disposed within the internal space (“cavity”) of the wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100).
(Note:
¶ 32: “one or more electronic components 132 of the illustrated example is integrally formed with or at least partially defines a structure or framework 166 (e.g., an essential support structure) of at least one of the frames 102…”. It is thus necessarily the case that electronic components are accommodated in head-wearable apparatus 100’s internal space. See also ¶ 25 with exemplary electronic components 132 that are shown in FIGs. 1-2.
in ¶ 18, Abele considers printed circuit boards to be “electronic components” themselves, and further describes how circuit board 204 (which is already in the internal space) may comprise {first, second, third, etc.} circuit boards {206, 208, 210} with first/second connectors 212/214 between them. Any one of these may therefore correspond to the flexible printed circuit board or the at least one component.)
Regarding claim 8, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1.
Tzvieli further discloses (see FIG. 1A, ¶s 61-66)
wherein the flexible portion (second portion 33) is configured to reduce pressure on a side of the user's face when worn by the user (¶ 64: “[second] portion 33 that is designed to be bent around a human ear to improve the smartglasses' fit to the wearer”); and
that the second rigid portion (third portion 34) is positioned at an end of the wearing member (“temple”) .
Regarding claim 9, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 8.
Tzvieli further discloses (see FIG. 1A, ¶s 61-66) wherein the first rigid portion (first portion 32), the flexible portion (second portion 33), and the second rigid portion (third portion 34) are sequentially disposed in order of being adjacent to the lens frame (front element 30).
Regarding claim 10, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 8.
Tzvieli further discloses (see FIG. 1A, ¶s 61-66)
wherein the flexible portion (second portion 33) is disposed in a portion corresponding to the user's ear when the wearable electronic device (smartglasses 29) is worn by the user (¶ 64: “[second] portion 33 that is designed to be bent around a human ear”), and
wherein the first rigid portion (first portion 32) comprises an electronic component and the second rigid portion (third portion 34) comprises a battery (¶ 61: “first portion… includes first electronic components”, “third portion… includes second electronic components”, “second electronic components comprise a battery”).
Abele further discloses (¶ 31, FIGs. (1,2)A) a speaker (138) as an electronic component.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele in view of Ardisana, Tzvieli, Liao, and Wang – as applied to claim 1 above – and in further view of Milford (US 20120056847 A1)
Regarding claim 14, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1.
Abele further discloses (see FIG. 1C, ¶ 25) wherein two sensor modules (e.g. camera 152, optical sensor 156) are disposed in symmetrical positions of the lens frame corresponding to a left eye and a right eye of the user.
Abele does not explicitly disclose
wherein the two sensor modules comprise a proximity sensor,
wherein the proximity sensor is configured to detect a distance between a portion of the user's body and the wearable electronic device, and
wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to determine whether the distance is less than a predetermined threshold.
Abele and Milford commonly relate to head-mounted displays.
Milford discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶s 29-33)
wherein the two sensor modules (from 222-228) comprise a proximity sensor,
wherein the proximity sensor is configured to detect a distance between a portion of the user's (218’s) body and the wearable electronic device (AR eyeglasses 220) (¶ 30: “One or more of the sensors 222, 224, 226, and 228 may be used to assist power management... through detection of a wearer’s (user 218) head, nose, etc.”), and
wherein the wearable electronic device (AR eyeglasses 220) is configured to determine whether the distance is less than a predetermined threshold (as clearly necessitated by proximity sensing and object detecting operations).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Abele with Milford, in order to provide assistance with power management and user interface elements for controlling the display device (Milford ¶ 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
