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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 1/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/19/2025.
Cancellation of claim 15, filed 12/19/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the specification and to claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 14, 16-20, filed 12/19/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claim 21, filed 12/19/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Despite the amendments to the claims and the specification, several objections and rejections are maintained below, as Applicant has only partially addressed the issues identified in the Non-Final Rejection filed 9/19/2025. Applicant has left several other issues outstanding and has also failed to ensure that the submitted amendments are proper, thereby introducing additional errors as noted in part below.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 19-21 of the Remarks, filed 12/19/2025, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 12/19/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection, filed 9/19/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below.
Applicant's remaining arguments on pgs. 21-25 of the Remarks and regarding claim 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons given as follows:
On pg. 22 of the Remarks, Applicant begins with a rather blatant mischaracterization of the rejection of record, stating that
‘Office contends that Ardisana discloses the claimed "L-shaped rigid reinforcement beam,"’.
However, a basic review of the actual rejection will show that Ardisana was not relied on for the L-shape. Examiner thus finds all of Applicant’s arguments on pg. 22 of the Remarks to be highly irrelevant.
On pg. 23 of the Remarks, Applicant then argues against some obvious-to-try rationales discussed in the MPEP – despite the fact that Examiner did not merely rely on such obvious-to-try rationale in the rejection of claim 16. Applicant’s arguments are thus again found to be entirely irrelevant.
This being said, one can certainly glean from their own common sense why it would indeed be “obvious to try” an L-shaped reinforcement beam – given that corner reinforcement structures, shaped to conform to the corners (as invoked in the rejection), certainly do not present a novel concept. After all, one can enter most hardware stores and find multiple examples of such basic structures (L brackets, L beams, etc.)
On pgs. 24-25, Applicant again appears to grossly mischaracterize or misinterpret the rejection of record, stating that
The Office contends that the internal space of the lens frame in Abele is configured to mount the crossbar of Ardisana.
However, Examiner has made no suggestion that Abele’s (unaltered) device was ready to accept Ardisana’s crossbar. Evidently, Applicant has manufactured this strawman to target with improper arguments based on bodily incorporation (e.g. “Abele does not suggest mounting any additional component” – Remarks, pg. 25). Applicant is thus reminded that persons of ordinary skill are neither required to implement every single feature disclosed in the prior art, nor are they limited thereto, and neither does Applicant have any authority to impose such constraints.
Applicant is also reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant would also benefit from recognizing that one of ordinary skill is one of standard competency, creativity, and ability to adapt and make routine design adjustments as appropriate. With respect to Applicant’s apparent arguments – that Abele is somehow unprepared to accommodate Ardisana’s crossbar – given that Abele and Ardisana certainly disclose enough internal spacing to accommodate their own structures, Examiner finds no reason why one of ordinary skill would be unable to simply create enough space and/or reorganize components in order to accommodate the internal structures they wish to integrate from the prior art. This requires no more than common design sense and judgment – which Applicant certainly has no authority to withhold from persons of ordinary skill, even for mere sake of argumentative convenience.
In light of the above, Examiner has found all of Applicant’s arguments to be largely improper or irrelevant, and therefore unpersuasive.
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:
In ¶ 61, lines 1-3, Applicant has not adequately applied the suggested revision, or an otherwise appropriate one, leaving the parenthetical structure still at issue. It appears an improper close parenthesis and misplaced/redundant repetition of “of FIG. 1” remains.
Refer again also to ¶ 4E of the 9/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection.
In ¶ 72, line 12, Applicant has failed to correct the improperly self-referencing recitation: “upper structure 202-1 of the upper structure 202-1”. The replacement ¶ 72 submitted by Applicant does not contain a single amendment.
Refer again also to ¶ 4G of the 9/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection.
In ¶ 100, lines 2-4, “minimizes 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 grammatically deficient and unclear.
In ¶s 106 and 122, the geometric description for the first portion of the first frame – apparently corresponding to what was referred to as the 1-1th frame in the pre-amended claims, but now relabeled for unknown reasons – remains unclear and apparently inconsistent with the geometry actually described/shown in the specification/figures (¶s 79-80, FIG. 6). (See also 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 3 and 19 below).
Refer again also to ¶ 4L of the 9/19/2025 Non-Final Rejection.
Note also that Applicant introduces further confusion by relabeling the 1-1th/1-2th frame as the first/second portion of the first frame in the cited paragraphs. Applicant’s relabeling is done in an inappropriate and inconsistent manner that fails to reconcile with other references to the 1-1th/1-2th frames elsewhere in the specification – resulting in unclear and disjointed terminology.
Such irregular/improper relabeling is also done in a manner which fails to provide proper introduction/antecedence for either the first or second portions of the first frame.
In ¶s 108 and 123, “to be bent a direction perpendicular to toward the second direction” is neither clear nor proper English.
As in the previous office action – and since Applicant appears to have only (partially) addressed the abundance of issues Examiner had identified in the prior office action – Examiner reiterates that this list is not exhaustive, and 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, “wherein the reinforcing member comprising” is improper and should read “wherein the reinforcing member comprises”
In claim 16, line 7, Applicant has improperly amended “in electronic communication with” to read “in electronic communication within”, which is ungrammatical.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims not specifically addressed in the objections above inherit the objections of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are 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 1, lines 6-7 and line 12 each recites “a portion of the display”, overloading the phrase with multiple introductions and causing ambiguity as to whether each “portion of the display” refers to a common object or distinct ones. For examination purposes, the second occurrence of “a portion of the display” shall be read “the portion of the display”.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 16-17 recite “[the reinforcing member] form[ing] a bend along the second frame”, which directly conflicts with Applicant’s own disclosure; see FIG. 6. For examination purposes, “the second frame” shall be read as “the first frame” as apparently intended.
Regarding claim 3, in lines 2-3, the geometric description for the “first portion of the first frame” – apparently renamed from the “1-1th frame” for unknown reasons – continues to contradict Applicant’s own disclosure. Here, the “first portion of the first frame” does not appear to be arranged in a manner that displaces it from the display in the second direction, yet it is oddly recited as being “farthest from the display in the second direction”. Refer again also to the first bullet point under ¶ 9 in the previous office action filed 9/19/2025.
Regarding claim 16, line 9 recites “the L-shaped c reinforcement beam” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “the L-shaped rigid reinforcement beam” as written prior to Applicant’s amendment and as introduced on line 8 of the same claim.
Further regarding claim 16, lines 10-11 recite “[an L-shaped rigid reinforcement beam…] extending according to the flexible hollow lens”. However, “the flexible hollow lens” lacks proper antecedent basis, and “extending according to” is grammatically awkward and lacks clear meaning. For examination purposes, the limitation shall be interpreted to mean that the L-shaped rigid reinforcement beam extends along the flexible hollow lens frame introduced on line 2 of the same claim.
Regarding claim 19, in lines 2-5, the geometric descriptions continue to contradict Applicant’s own disclosure. Applicant has made no changes addressing the substantive 112(b) issues raised in ¶ 9 of the previous office action. Applicant has only relabeled the 1-1th/1-2th frame to be first/second portions of the first angled frame for unknown reasons. Indefiniteness associated with description of the first portion of the first angled frame thus again mirror what was (re)identified for claim 3 above – the being “farthest from the display in the second direction” continuing to conflict with the disclosure. Indefiniteness associated with descriptions of the second portion of the second angled frame are again due to the fact that it is not apparently “bent toward the first direction” as claimed. Again refer to ¶ 9 of the previous office action.
Further regarding claim 19, line 3 recites “the wearable electronic headset” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “the wearable electronic device” as written prior to Applicant’s amendment and as earlier introduced in claim 16, line 1.
Further regarding claim 19, line 6 recites “the L-shaped ridge reinforcing beam” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “the L-shaped rigid reinforcement beam” as earlier introduced in claim 16, line 8.
Regarding claim 20, lines 3-4 recite “a first portion of the second angled frame extends from the first portion of the second angled frame”, which is nonsensical on its face. The initial “first portion of the second angled frame” was presumably intended to read as “a second portion of the second angled frame” and will be read in this manner for examination purposes below.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-11 and 21 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”) and 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).
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);
a flexible printed circuit board (circuit board 204) disposed within the internal space (“cavity”).
(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."
PNG
media_image1.png
648
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][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.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
403
1098
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Abele does not disclose
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 a portion of the display,
wherein the reinforcing member comprising:
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 second frame,
wherein the wearing member comprises a first rigid portion coupled to the lens frame, a flexible portion coupled to the first rigid portion, and a second rigid portion coupled to the flexible portion, and
wherein the flexible portion accommodates a wire extending from the first rigid portion to the second rigid portion across the flexible portion.
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 a portion of the display (“optical elements”),
wherein the reinforcing member (“crossbar”) comprising:
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), and
(¶ 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, ¶s 61-66)
wherein the wearing member (“temple”) comprises a first rigid portion (first portion 32) coupled to the lens frame (front element 30), 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) (¶ 61: “first and third portions… are stiffer than the second portion”, ¶ ), and
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 in view of Ardisana and Tzvieli thus disclose 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 (rather than the second frame – as Applicant appears to have mistakenly recited which is inconsistent with their own disclosure; see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). 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 further 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 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), which is farthest from the display (first/second lenses 110/112 with projection system 142) in the second direction, 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
Regarding claim 11, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1.
Abele also discloses the wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100) further comprising a hinge structure (hinge 130) rotatably connecting the lens frame (frame 102) to the wearing member (first/second stems 104/106). (See FIGs. 1(A-B) and ¶ 23: “the first stem 104 and the second stem 106 are pivotally coupled to the frame via a hinge 130”)
Regarding claim 21, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 1.
Abele, modified by Ardisana in the manner described above, also satisfies:
wherein the first portion extends along the flexible printed circuit board (Abele’s circuit board 204) and has a first width defined in a front-rear direction (i.e. colinearly with the first/second directions claimed prior), and
wherein the second portion extends along the flexible printed circuit board (Abele’s circuit board 204) and has a second width defined in a top-bottom direction perpendicular to the front-rear direction (i.e. perpendicular to first/second directions).
(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 bend along the first frame – as established/motivated in regards to claim 1 above – the first/second portions that meet at the bend will inevitably extend along/perpendicular to the front-rear directions.)
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele in view of Ardisana and Tzvieli, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Liao (US 20170371164 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 11.
Modified Abele does not disclose wherein the hinge structure further includes a restoring member positioned between the lens frame and the wearing member, the hinge structure being configured to prevent the wearing member from being rotated about the lens frame by a second predetermined angle or more.
Abele and Liao commonly relate to head-mounted displays.
Liao discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 45-53) wherein the hinge structure further includes a restoring member (tension spring 21) positioned between the lens frame (glasses frame 1) and the wearing member (glasses legs 2), the hinge structure being configured to prevent 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”)
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 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)
Regarding claim 13, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 12.
Liao further discloses wherein the restoring member (tension spring 21) is disposed on an outer surface of the wearing member (glasses legs 2). (See FIG. 2)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele in view of Ardisana and Tzvieli, 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-)
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).
Claims 16-20 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”).
Regarding claim 16, Abele discloses (see FIG. 1(A-C), FIG. 2A; ¶s 20-48) a wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100), comprising:
a flexible hollow lens frame (frame 102) defining an enclosed internal space (“cavity”) and an exterior lens seating groove (i.e. in first/second rims 116/118 of frame 102);
a display (first/second lenses 110/112 with projection system 142) connected to the flexible hollow lens frame (frame 102) at the exterior lens seating groove (i.e. of first/second rims 116/118), the display (first/second lenses 110/112 with projection system 142) being configured to display visual information to a user (per ¶ 26);
a flexible circuit board (circuit board 204) disposed within the enclosed internal space (“cavity”), the flexible circuit board (circuit boards 204) being disposed in electronic communication within the display (first/second lenses 110/112 with projection system 142);
a pair of arms (first/second stems 104/106) hingedly connected (via hinge 130) to the flexible hollow lens frame (frame 102), the pair of arms (first/second stems 104/106) being configured to connect to the user's ears when the wearable electronic device (head-wearable apparatus 100) is worn by the user.
(Regarding item C’s enclosed internal space, flexible circuit board disposed within the enclosed internal space, and flexible circuit board being disposed in electronic communication with the display – 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 A’s “flexible” hollow lens frame, note:
¶ 44: "the head-wearable apparatus 100 of the illustrated example includes an outer layer 224 (e.g., a protective outer material) (FIG. 2C) that covers or protects one or more surfaces 226 of the circuit boards 204 defining the frame 102... outer layer 224 of the illustrated example may be composed of a material including, but not limited to, a rubber, ...")
Abele does not disclose an L-shaped rigid reinforcement beam disposed within the enclosed internal space such that a leg of the L-shaped c reinforcement beam is disposed between the flexible circuit board and an internal surface of the flexible hollow lens frame and extending according to the flexible hollow lens to surround at least portion of the display.
Abele and Ardisana commonly relate to head-mounted displays.
Ardisana discloses (see FIGs. 1(A-D), ¶s 16-31) a rigid reinforcement beam (“crossbar”) disposed within the enclosed internal space such that the c reinforcement beam (“crossbar”) is disposed between the flexible circuit board (“plastics material” which “embeds core wire 24”) and an internal surface flexible hollow lens frame (central frame portion 16) and extending according to the flexible hollow lens to surround at least portion of the display. (Note ¶ 31: “a crossbar (e.g. metal) may be integrated in the frames along line 23 to limit the flexure of the frames”.)
Abele in view of Ardisana thus disclose the invention substantially as claimed, except for
an L-shaped rigid reinforcement beam
a leg of the L-shaped c reinforcement beam is disposed between the flexible circuit board and an internal surface of the flexible hollow lens frame.
However, Examiner finds that such features may only amount to a mere change in shape of the Ardisana’s rigid reinforcement beam (“crossbar”). Examiner also notes that such a change of shape – i.e. to an L-shaped rigid reinforcement beam with a leg disposed between the flexible circuit board and an internal surface of the flexible hollow lens frame – may naturally be done to conform to the already L-shaped edges of Abele’s frame 102 (see the schematic cross section of frame 102 in the above annotated FIG. 1B’s bottom panel).
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 adopt an L-shape for the crossbar, in order to conform to the already L-shaped 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).
Regarding claim 17, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 16.
Abele further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B above and ¶s 44-48) wherein the flexible hollow lens frame (frame 102) comprises a first angled frame (i.e. including frame 102’s rear and outer sections) and a second angled frame (i.e. including frame 102’s front and inner sections) that, when connected, define the enclosed internal space (“cavity”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 17.
Abele further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B above):
wherein the first angled 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 angled 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 angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear+outer sections) such that the second angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s front+inner sections) is disposed in the second direction with respect to the first angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear+outer sections).
Regarding claim 19, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 18.
Abele further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B above) wherein a first portion of the first angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s outer section) forms an outermost frame of the wearable electronic headset (head-wearable apparatus 100), which is farthest from the display (first/second lenses 110/112 with projection system 142) in the second direction, and a second portion of the first angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s rear section) extends from the first portion of the first angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s outer section) to be bent toward the first direction.
Abele, modified by Ardisana in the manner described above, also satisfies wherein a second leg of the L-shaped ridge reinforcing beam (“crossbar” of Ardisana’s ¶ 31) is arranged to at least partially face the second portion of the first angled 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 an L-shape to conform to the already L-shaped edges of Abele’s frame 102 – as established/motivated in regards to claim 16 above – the reinforcing member will always have a (second) leg facing the first direction as labeled in the annotated figure. No alternative geometry is possible.)
Regarding claim 20, modified Abele discloses the wearable electronic device of claim 18.
Abele further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B above) wherein a first portion of the second angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s inner section) comprises the exterior lens seating groove (of frame 102’s first/second rims 116/118) and a first portion of the second angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s front section) extends from the first portion of the second angled frame (i.e. frame 102’s inner section) towards a direction perpendicular to the second direction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights