DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2023, and 07/18/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20160062454 A1, and hereinafter “Wang”), in view of Gwak et al. (US 20200124860 A1, and hereinafter “Gwak”).
Regarding claim 1, A head-mounted device (Fig. 1, Abstract : a head-mounted display apparatus) that is configured to be worn by a user (Fig. 1, Abstract : a head-mounted display apparatus is worn by the user), comprising:
a device housing (Fig. 1-3, [0037] : main frame 110);
a facial interface (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0047] : facial side contact part 130, resilient body 134, and recess 120) that is connected to the device housing (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0047] : facial side contact part 130, resilient body 134, and recess 120 are connected to the main frame 110);
a support structure (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0043] : support part 115) that is configured to support the device housing with respect to the user so that the facial interface is in contact with a face of the user (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0043] : support part 115 is configured to support the main frame 110 with respect to the user);
content display components (Fig. 1-3, [0037-0039], [0047], [0070] : electronic device 200) that are located in the device housing and are configured to display content to the user (Fig. 1-3, [0037-0039], [0047], [0075] : electronic device 200 generates videos for the users to watch).
Wang does not teach an impact mitigation structure that is configured to mitigate an impact with an external structure.
However, Gwak teaches an impact mitigation structure (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] : buffer 200) that is configured to mitigate an impact with an external structure (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] : buffer 200 is a shock absorbing material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate impact mitigation structure as taught by Gwak into Wang’s head-mounted device by adding the buffer to the facial side contact part. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to absorb and reduce damage onto the device ([0064 of Gwak]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the impact mitigation structure includes a bump stop (Fig. 5-12, [0064], [0085] of Gwak : top case tc11-tc17) that is located inside the facial interface to disperse pressure from the impact (Fig. 5-12, [0064], [0085] of Gwak : top case tc11-tc17 are located inside the buffer 200 and cover 300, and can disperse pressure from impact).
Regarding claim 5, Wand as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the impact mitigation structure includes a non-Newtonian foam structure that is located inside the facial interface to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] : buffer 200 can be a foam that is inside a cover 300 that absorbs energy during the impact).
Regarding claim 8, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the content display components include an optical module (Fig. 1-3, [0037-0039], [0047], [0065-0070] of Wang : electronic device 200 is viewed through the lens 260 held by lens fixing part 160), and the impact mitigation structure includes an energy absorbing material that is located on a portion of the device housing that surrounds an exposed portion of the optical module to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] of Gwak : buffer 200 is a shock absorbing material such as sponge, rubber or foam that is located on the portion of the head mount display 9 that surrounds an exposed portion of the display 100a and 100b).
Regarding claim 10, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the impact mitigation structure includes dampers that are located in the support structure to regulate motion of the device housing relative to the face of the user during the impact (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] : buffer 200 can be a shock absorber made of sponge, rubber, or foam, and regulates motion of the head mounted display 9 relative to the face of the user during the impact).
Regarding claim 11, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the impact mitigation structure includes a resilient energy absorbing member (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] : buffer 200 is a shock absorbing material that can be a sponge, rubber, foam) that is located in the facial interface and is configured to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] : buffer 200 is located in the cover 300, can absorb energy during the impact).
Regarding claim 12, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the impact mitigation structure includes a mounting structure that connects the facial interface to the device housing (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] of Gwak : buffer 200 is a shock absorbing material that is located in the cover 300, and connects body of head mount display 9 with cover 300) and causes the facial interface to detach from the device housing during the impact (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0047] of Wang : facial side contact part 130 is detachable from main frame 110)
Regarding claim 13, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the impact mitigation structure includes a mounting structure that connects the facial interface to the device housing (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] of Gwak : buffer 200 is a shock absorbing material that is located in the cover 300, and connects body of head mount display 9 with cover 300) and allows the facial interface to slide laterally with respect to the device housing during the impact (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0047] of Wang : facial side contact part 130 is detachable from main frame 110, and can slide laterally with respect to the main frame 110 during the impact).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Gwak combination as applied above, in view of Asanuma (US 20160291387 A1, and hereinafter “Asanuma”).
Regarding claim 3, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the impact mitigation structure are located inside the facial interface and extend between an internal support structure of the facial interface and the device housing to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] of Gwak : buffer 200 is located inside the cover 300 and extends between the body of head mounted display 9 and cover 300, and can absorb energy during the impact).
Wang as modified by Gwak does not teach wherein the impact mitigation structure includes springs that are located inside the facial interface and extend between an internal support structure of the facial interface and the device housing to absorb energy during the impact.
However, Asanuma teaches wherein the impact mitigation structure includes springs that are located inside the facial interface and extend between an internal support structure of the facial interface and the device housing to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 19, [0142] : the shock absorber 106 can be an elastic material such as rubber and spring, or an air damper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spring as taught by Asanuma into Wang and Gwak combination’s head-mounted device by using a rubber and spring as a buffer. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to absorb and reduce damage onto the device ([0142] of Asanuma). Additionally, using a rubber and spring, or an air damper as a buffer is known as evidence by Asanuma ([0142]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1, wherein the impact mitigation structure is located inside the facial interface and extends between an internal support structure of the facial interface and the device housing to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 9-12, [0064], [0085] of Gwak : buffer 200 is located inside the cover 300 and extends between the body of head mounted display 9 and cover 300, and can absorb energy during the impact).
Wang as modified by Gwak does not teach wherein the impact mitigation structure includes an air filled damper that is located inside the facial interface and extends between an internal support structure of the facial interface and the device housing to absorb energy during the impact.
However, Asanuma teaches wherein the impact mitigation structure includes an air filled damper that is located inside the facial interface and extends between an internal support structure of the facial interface and the device housing to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 19, [0142] : the shock absorber 106 can be an elastic material such as rubber and spring, or an air damper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate air filled damper as taught by Asanuma into Wang and Gwak combination’s head-mounted device by using an air damper as a buffer. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to absorb and reduce damage onto the device ([0142] of Asanuma). Additionally, using an rubber and spring, or an air damper as a buffer is known as evidence by Asanuma ([0142]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Gwak combination as applied above, in view of Chen et al. (US 20180210492 A1, and hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 6, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1.
Wang as modified by Gwak does not teach wherein the impact mitigation structure includes an inflatable air bladder that is located inside the facial interface to absorb energy during the impact.
However, Chen teaches wherein the impact mitigation structure includes an inflatable air bladder (Fig. 1-2, [[0028] : inflatable cushion 41) that is located inside the facial interface (Fig. 1-2, [[0028] : inflatable cushion 41 is located between base plate 40 and foam body 45) to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 1-2, [[0028] : inflatable cushion 41 can absorb energy during impact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate inflatable air bladder as taught by Chen into Wang and Gwak combination’s head-mounted device by using an inflatable cushion as a buffer. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to provide a comfort wearing experience of the head-mounted device ([0040] of Chen).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Gwak combination as applied above, in view of Raffle et al. (US 20180095498 A1, and hereinafter “Raffle”).
Regarding claim 7, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1.
Wang as modified by Gwak does not teach wherein the impact mitigation structure includes deployable supports that deploy during the impact to move the device housing away from an internal support structure of the facial interface.
However, Raffle teaches wherein the impact mitigation structure includes deployable supports (Fig. 2, ,4, [0013], [0026] : strap 132, and hinge mechanism 185) that deploy during the impact to move the device housing away from an internal support structure of the facial interface (Fig. 2, 4, [0013], [0026] : strap 132, and hinge mechanism 185 can deploy during the impact to move the front face away from the supports of the face pad 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the deployable support as taught by Raffle into Wang and Gwak’s head-mounted device by adding the hinge and the strap to the front cover. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to provide coupling to better hold the housing together ([0059]). Additionally, adding physical structures to better couple the housings together is known as evidence by Wang ([0059]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Gwak combination as applied above, in view of Reynolds et al. (US 20180098465 A1, and hereinafter “Reynolds”).
Regarding claim 9, Wang as modified by Gwak teaches the head-mounted device of claim 1.
Wang as modified by Gwak does not teach wherein the impact mitigation structure includes a flexible rim that is located inside the facial interface, is stiffer than that the facial interface, and is connected to the device housing to absorb energy during the impact.
However, Reynolds teaches wherein the impact mitigation structure includes a flexible rim (Fig. 3-6, [0020-0024] : air channel ring 110) that is located inside the facial interface (Fig. 3-6, [0020-0024] : air channel ring 110 is located on the inner side of face mask 102), is stiffer than that the facial interface (Fig. 3-6, [0020-0024] : air channel ring 102 is a flexible hard plastic that is stiffer than face mask 102 which can be a foam, rubber ,or other elastomeric material), and is connected to the device housing to absorb energy during the impact (Fig. 3-6, [0020-0024] : air channel ring 110 is connected to the main body 116, and can absorb energy during the impact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the impact mitigation structure as taught by Reynolds into Wang and Gwak combination’s head-mounted device by adding the fans and the air channel ring to the facial side contact part, and the resilient body. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to reduce or prevent the display component from fogging up ([0020] of Reynolds).
Claim(s) 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20160062454 A1, and hereinafter “Wang”), in view of Smith et al. (US 11662550 B1, and hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches a head-mounted device (Fig. 1, Abstract : a head-mounted display apparatus) that is configured to be worn by a user (Fig. 1, Abstract : a head-mounted display apparatus is worn by the user), comprising:
a device housing (Fig. 1-3, [0037] : main frame 110) that defines an eye chamber (Fig. 1-3, [0037], [0047] : main frame 110 has chamber with a shape or structure for covering the user’s eyes);
control electronics (Fig. 1-3, [0037-0039], [0047], [0070] : electronic device 200) that are configured to generate computer-generated reality content (Fig. 1-3, [0037-0039], [0047], [0075] : electronic device 200 generates videos for the users to watch);
optical modules (Fig. 1-3, 8, [0065-0066], [0086] : lens 260 and lens fixing part 116) that are located partly in the eye chamber (Fig. 1-3, 8, [0065-0066], [0086] : lens 260 and lens fixing part 116 are located partly in the chamber of main frame 110) and are configured to display the computer-generated reality content to the user as part of a computer-generated reality experience (Fig. 1-3, 8, [0065-0066], [0086] : lens 260 are configured to display the contend generated by the electronic device 200);
a support structure (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0043] : support part 115) that is configured to support the device housing with respect to the user (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0043] : support part 115 is configured to support the main frame 110 with respect to the user);
a facial interface (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0047] : facial side contact part 130, resilient body 134, and recess 120) is configured to contact a face of the user (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0047] : facial side contact part 130, resilient body 134, and recess 120 are configured to contact a face of the user).
Wang does not teach an energy absorbing structure that is located in the eye chamber of the device housing and is configured to control motion of the device housing during a dynamic loading event.
However, Smith teaches an energy absorbing structure (Fig. 1, 25-26, Col. 16, Lines 56-67 : expansible features 2604) that is located in the eye chamber of the device housing (Fig. 1, 25-26, Col. 16, Lines 56-67 : expansible features 2604 are located on the optical lens 2606, and within the chamber of HMD system 102) and is configured to control motion of the device housing during a dynamic loading event (Fig. 1, 25-26, Col. 16, Lines 56-67 : expansible features 2604 can be multiple airbags that expand during a dynamic loading event, and can control the motion of the HMD system 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the energy absorbing structure as taught by Smith into Wang’s head mounted device by adding the expansible features on the main frame. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to absorb and distribute shock energy, and protect the lens (Col. 16, Lines 56-67 of Smith).
Regarding claim 15, Wang as modified by Smith teaches the head-mounted device of claim 14, wherein the energy absorbing structure includes an energy absorbing material (Fig. 1-4, 6, [0093] of Wang : resilient members 143 are springs) that is located on a rear wall of the eye chamber adjacent to the optical modules (Fig. 1-4, 6, [0093] of Wang : resilient members 143 are springs are located on a rear wall of the lens fixing part 116, adjacent to the lens fixing part 116).
Regarding claim 16, Wang as modified by Smith teaches the head-mounted device of claim 14, wherein the energy absorbing structure includes an inflatable air bladder (Fig. 1, 25-26, Col. 16, Lines 56-67 of Smith : expansible features 2604 can be multiple airbags) that is located in the eye chamber adjacent to the optical modules and is inflated in response to the dynamic loading event (Fig. 1, 25-26, Col. 16, Lines 56-67 of Smith : expansible features 2604 are located adjacent to the lens 2606, and are inflated in response to the dynamic loading event).
Regarding claim 17, Wang as modified by Smith teaches the head-mounted device of claim 14, wherein the energy absorbing structure includes energy absorbing rings that are each connected to one of the optical modules (Fig. 1-4, 6, [0093] of Wang : resilient members 143 are energy absorbing rings that are connected to the lens fixing part 116).
Claim(s) 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20160062454 A1, and hereinafter “Wang”), in view of Xu et al. (US 20170331993 A1, and hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches a head-mounted device (Fig. 1, Abstract : a head-mounted display apparatus) that is configured to be worn by a user (Fig. 1, Abstract : a head-mounted display apparatus is worn by the user), comprising:
a device housing (Fig. 1-3, [0037] : main frame 110) that defines an eye chamber (Fig. 1-3, [0037], [0047] : main frame 110 has chamber with a shape or structure for covering the user’s eyes);
control electronics (Fig. 1-3, [0037-0039], [0047], [0070] : electronic device 200) that are configured to generate computer-generated reality content (Fig. 1-3, [0037-0039], [0047], [0075] : electronic device 200 generates videos for the users to watch);
optical modules (Fig. 1-3, 8, [0065-0066], [0086] : lens 260 and lens fixing part 116) that are located partly in the eye chamber (Fig. 1-3, 8, [0065-0066], [0086] : lens 260 and lens fixing part 116 are located partly in the chamber of main frame 110) and are configured to display the computer-generated reality content to the user as part of a computer-generated reality experience (Fig. 1-3, 8, [0065-0066], [0086] : lens 260 are configured to display the contend generated by the electronic device 200);
a support structure (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0043] : support part 115) that is configured to support the device housing with respect to the user (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0043] : support part 115 is configured to support the main frame 110 with respect to the user);
a facial interface (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0047] : facial side contact part 130, resilient body 134, and recess 120) is configured to contact a face of the user (Fig. 1-4, 8, [0040-0047] : facial side contact part 130, resilient body 134, and recess 120 are configured to contact a face of the user).
Wang does not teach an impact mitigation structure that allows motion of the optical modules with respect to the device housing during a dynamic loading event.
However, Xu teaches an impact mitigation structure (Fig. 5-6, [0150-0154] : leaf springs 614, and impact absorption member 610/640) that allows motion of the optical modules with respect to the device housing during a dynamic loading event (Fig. 5-6, [0150-0154] : leaf springs 614, and impact absorption member 610/640 allows motion of the optical package 606 and lens carrier 608 with respect to the camera cover 628 during a dynamic loading event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate impact mitigation structure as taught by Xu into Wang’s head-mounted device by adding the leaf springs and impact absorption members to the lens fixing part. The suggestion / motivation for doing so would be to prevent or lessen the damage on the lens from impact ([0151] of Xu).
Regarding claim 19, Wang as modified by Xu teaches the head-mounted device of claim 18, wherein the impact mitigation structure is a crushable energy absorbing mounting structure that supports the optical modules with respect to the device housing (Fig. 5-6, [0150-0154] of Xu : leaf springs 614, and impact absorption member 610/640 are crushable energy absorbing mounting structures that support the optical package 606 and lens carrier 608 with respect to the camera cover 628).
Regarding claim 20, Wang as modified by Xu teaches the head-mounted device of claim 18, wherein the impact mitigation structure is a breakaway mounting structure that connects the optical modules to the device housing (Fig. 5-6, [0150-0154] of Xu : leaf springs 614, and impact absorption member 610/640 are breakaway mounting structures that support the optical package 606 and lens carrier 608 with respect to the camera cover 628).
Regarding claim 21, Wang as modified by Xu teaches the head-mounted device of claim 18, wherein the impact mitigation structure is a mounting structure that connects the optical modules to the device housing so that the optical modules are able to pivot with respect to the device housing around a generally upright axis during the dynamic loading event (Fig. 5-6, [0149-0154] of Xu : leaf springs 614, and impact absorption member 610/640 connects the optical package 606 and lens carrier 608 so that the optical package 606 and lens carrier 608 are able to pivot with respect to the camera cover 628 around a generally upright axis during the dynamic loading event).
Regarding claim 22, Wang as modified by Xu teaches the head-mounted device of claim 18, wherein the impact mitigation structure is a mounting structure that connects the optical modules to the device housing so that the optical modules are able to slide outward with respect to the user during the dynamic loading event (Fig. 5-6, [0149-0154] of Xu : leaf springs 614, and impact absorption member 610/640 connects the optical package 606 and lens carrier 608 so that the optical package 606 and lens carrier 608 are able to slide outward with respect to the camera cover 628 and the user during the dynamic loading event).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEON KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen L Parker can be reached on 303-297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/KEON NMN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
