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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 27, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 6-7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6 “a spring coupled to the first and second eyecups and configured to bias the first eyecup and the second eyecup toward an initial position; and a gear configured to be pushed, by the spring, into and out of engagement with a first rack prong of the first eyecup and a second rack prong of the second eyecup” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if (case 1) the spring biasing the position of the eyecups is the same spring that is pushing the gear in/out of engagement; or (case 2) there are two springs, one for each function. Regarding case 1, the claim construction indicates there is one spring doing both functions, particularly the antecedent indicates one spring. Regarding case 2, the specification indicates there are two spring systems, particularly paragraph [0041] states (emphasis added by the examiner):
Gear 530 is configured to be pushed in and out of engagement with racks 531 (e.g., by a spring-loaded mechanism). A spring 550 biases eyecups 15 towards an initial, unperturbed position, to avoid backlash and provide stability and reliability.
Paragraph [0040] and the second sentience of paragraph [0041] and spring 550 in figure 5 clearly indicate spring 550 urges the two eyecups to an initial position for the well-known purpose of avoiding backlash. On the other hand, paragraphs [0040-41] and figure 5 do not discuss or suggest that biasing spring (550) is also pushing the gear in/out of engagement. Indeed, the first sentence of paragraph [0041] indicates it is a separate mechanism. Since there is no support in the specification for case 1 the examiner interprets that the claim is meant to add a second spring mechanism, i.e. case 2, as supported by paragraph [0041] of the specification. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “a spring coupled to the first and second eyecups and configured to bias the first eyecup and the second eyecup toward an initial position; and a spring-load gear mechanism configured to be pushed
Claims 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 6 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6-7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0149151, of record, with evidence of certain facts provided by Wikipedia webpage “Backlash (engineering)” as of 2007, of record, Jones US Patent 2,478,925, of record and Adams US Patent 4,676,335.
Regarding claim 6 Tseng discloses a headset (title e.g. figure 1 head-mounted display device 100), comprising: a frame (e.g. housing 110), supporting: a display (e.g. display modules 120) to provide a virtual image generated in an immersive reality application (axiomatic); two optical elements to provide the virtual image to a headset user (e.g. figure 2 display panel 124 and a lens 126 on the left and right); and a linear actuation mechanism (e.g. figures 4-12 driving module 140) configured to adjust an inter-axial distance between the two optical elements (paragraph [0004] “head-mounted display device, which is configured to obtain the inter-pupillary distance of the user and automatically adjust the projection optical path of a pair of display modules”), the linear actuation mechanism (e.g. 140) comprising: an actuator (e.g. actuator 142) coupled to a mechanical element (e.g. transmission mechanism 144) and configured to cause a motion thereof (axiomatic, e.g. inter alia paragraph [0033]); a first eyecup configured to support one of the optical elements (e.g. figure 2 left bracket 122 supporting left 124 & 126), the first eyecup coupled to the mechanical element to move in a first direction by a selected distance upon an actuation of the mechanical element (axiomatic see figures 4-12); and a second eyecup configured to support another of the optical elements (e.g. figure 2 right bracket 122 supporting right 124 & 126), the second eyecup coupled to the mechanical element to move in a second direction by the selected distance upon the actuation of the mechanical element (axiomatic see figures 4-12), wherein the second direction is opposite to the first direction (inter alia paragraphs [0014-25] note figures illustrate pair of modules, i.e. left and right, “that relatively moves a pair of display modules away from each other in a head-mounted display device” or “relatively moves the pair of display modules close to each other”).
Tseng does not disclose a spring coupled to the first and second eyecups and configured to bias the first eyecup and the second eyecup toward an initial position; and a spring-load gear mechanism configured to be pushed into and out of engagement with a first rack prong of the first eyecup and a second rack prong of the second eyecup.
Regarding the biasing spring – applicant’s state issue solved by the spring is to reduce backlash, see instant application paragraphs [0002 & 0041]. The examiner takes Official Notice1 that using a spring to reduce backlash by having the gear surfaces maintain contact using spring force is well known, as evidenced by Wikipedia third bullet point and Jones column 1 lines 40-50. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first and second eyecups in the headset to have spring coupled therebetween configured to bias them toward an initial position since it is well known to use a spring to remove backlash from a linear translation mechanism, thereby solving applicant’s stated issue.
Regarding the spring-load gear mechanism – the examiner takes Official Notice that having a gear (aka pinion) be spring loaded to engage said gear in a rack and pinion setup is well known, as evidenced by Adams column 4 lines 13-62, for the purpose of spring loading the rack into engagement with the pinion to facilitate connection (Adams column 4 lines 46-50). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the gear/pinion to be a spring-load mechanism since it is well known setup that one would be motivated to have for the purpose of spring loading the rack into engagement with the pinion to facilitate connection.
Regarding claim 7 Tseng discloses the headset of claim 6, as set forth above. Tseng further discloses wherein the mechanical element comprises a threaded rod (e.g. figure 8 screw 144c) rotatably fixed on the frame (necessary for proper function), and a nut threaded onto the threaded rod and attached to the first eyecup (e.g. left screw sleeves 144c), wherein the actuator (e.g. 142) is configured to cause a rotation of the threaded rod (paragraph [0035] “rotation output by the actuator 142 can be converted into a linear translation by the gear set 144a, the screw 144c and the screw sleeves 144d to move the pair of display modules 120 synchronously”).
Regarding claim 11 Tseng discloses the headset of claim 6, as set forth above. Tseng further discloses wherein the mechanical element is a threaded rod (e.g. figure 8 144c) horizontally disposed on the frame (see figure 8).
Regarding claim 15 Tseng discloses the headset of claim 6, as set forth above. Tseng further discloses further comprising a rail (e.g. figure 8 sliding bar 172) on the frame (necessary for proper function) configured to support the first eyecup and the second eyecup as they move away from or towards one another (see figure 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 (and therefore its dependents) has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 10, 2026
1 Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice the statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, see MPEP 2144.03 C.