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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s response of 7/162026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1 and 13.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 6/5/2026 has been considered.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/178,870 filed on 3/6/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumihara (US 2016/0054565, hereinafter, “Izumihara”) in view of Rochford at al. (US 2017/0068500, hereinafter, “Rochford”) and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2016/0307542, hereinafter, “Zheng”).
Regarding claim 1, Izumihara discloses a head-mounted device 10 (Fig. 1B), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure 320 ([0057]);
a first display 313a supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 and configured to provide a first image to a first eye box ([0059]);
a second display 313b supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 and configured to provide a second image to a second eye box ([0059]);
a first lens and a second lens supported by the head-mounted structure ([0003]).
Izumihara does not disclose a forward-facing display supported on a front side of the head-mounted support structure.
Rochford discloses a head mounted device (Fig. 1) comprising a forward-facing display 110 supported by on a front side of the head mounted support structure ([0016]).
Both Izumihara and Rochford disclose head-mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara so that the head mounted device includes a forwards-facing display, as taught by Rochford, for allowing a person other than the user to interact with the user ([0012] in Rochford).
Izumihara/ Rochford does not disclose wherein the forward facing display has an active area in which a third image is displayed and has a ring-shaped inactive area surrounding the active area that does not display images; an optical component in the inactive area; and a covering structure that overlaps the inactive area.
Zheng discloses an electronic device (e.g., a tablet) comprising a display that includes sensors (Abstract). In one embodiment, in Zheng, the electronic device includes a display 14 that comprises an active area 22 and inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0025]). The inactive area is ring- shaped surrounding the active area and does not display images as it covers sensors 18 (Fig. 1, [0027]). Moreover, in Zheng, a covering structure 44, 46 overlaps the active area 22 and the inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0043]). In Zheng’s display device, an optical component, e.g., light sensor 52, is in the inactive area ([0048]) and the covering structure overlaps the inactive area (Fig. 3, [0049]).
Both Rochford and Zheng disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Rochford/ Izumihara so that the forward-facing display 110 of Rochford/ Izumihara includes an active area surrounded by an inactive area that includes an optical component, with a covering structure covering the inactive area and the active area, as taught by Zheng, for protecting the entire display from the environment (re 44) and for blocking internal device components from view by a user through peripheral edge portions of 46 ([0049] in Zheng).
In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng the forward-facing display has a display cover layer that overlaps the active area and the inactive area and the covering structure is under the display cover layer (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
Moreover, in Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng, the covering structure is separated from the display cover layer by an air gap (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
Regarding claim 3, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1 wherein
the covering structure comprises a ring-shaped polymer structure 46 that surrounds the active area (Fig. 3, [0049] in Zheng).
Regarding claim 4, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 3 wherein
the ring-shaped polymer structure 46 has a through-hole opening 48 aligned with the optical component 52 (Fig. 3, [0050] in Zheng).
Regarding claim 5, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 3 wherein
the ring-shaped polymer structure 46 has an opening 48, the head-mounted device further comprising a glass member 44 in the opening that is aligned with the optical component (Fig. 3, [0043] in Zheng).
Regarding claim 6, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 3 wherein
the ring-shaped polymer structure 46 has a recess 48 aligned with the optical component 52 (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
Regarding claim 12, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1 wherein the covering structure comprises a polymer layer that is separated from the display cover layer by the air gap overlapping the inactive area (Fig. 3, [0049] in Zheng).
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose wherein the polymer layer has a surface with compound curvature.
In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng, the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member 46 appears to be flat (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
The surface of the ring-shaped shroud 46 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, blocking internal device components from external view (see, for example, [0049] in Zheng), thus, providing a better aesthetic view of the head-mounted device.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the claimed invention except for the type of the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the ring-shaped shroud member has the claimed shape, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the shape of the ring-shaped shroud is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the aesthetic appearance of the head-mounted device.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the shape because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Moreover, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Moreover, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose wherein the polymer layer has a developable surface overlapping the active area. In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng, the polymer layer 46 is in contact with the active area 22 (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
The parameter of the overlap between the polymer layer 46 and the active area 22 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the size of the opening 48, and thus, the amount of light incident on the light sensor 52.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed amount of overlap (greater than zero). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the overlap lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the overlap is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it improves the amount of detected outside light.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of overlap because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claims 2, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumihara, Rochford, Zheng, and Wang (US 2020/0088999, hereinafter, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 2, Izumihara discloses a head-mounted device 10 (Fig. 1B), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure 320 ([0057]);
a first display 313a supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 and configured to provide a first image to a first eye box ([0059]);
a second display 313b supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 and configured to provide a second image to a second eye box ([0059]);
a first lens and a second lens supported by the head-mounted structure ([0003]).
Izumihara does not disclose a forward-facing display supported on a front side of the head-mounted support structure.
Rochford discloses a head mounted device (Fig. 1) comprising a forward-facing display 110 supported by on a front side of the head mounted support structure ([0016]).
Both Izumihara and Rochford disclose head-mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara so that the head mounted device includes a forwards-facing display, as taught by Rochford, for allowing a person other than the user to interact with the user ([0012] in Rochford).
Izumihara/ Rochford does not disclose wherein the forward facing display has a ring-shaped inactive area surrounding the active area that does not display images; an optical component in the inactive area; and a covering structure that overlaps the inactive area.
Zheng discloses an electronic device (e.g., a tablet) comprising a display that includes sensors (Abstract). In one embodiment, in Zheng, the electronic device includes a display 14 that comprises an active area 22 and inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0025]). The inactive area is ring- shaped surrounding the active area and does not display images as it covers sensors 18 (Fig. 1, [0027]). Moreover, in Zheng, a covering structure 44, 46 overlaps the active area 22 and the inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0043]). In Zheng’s display device, an optical component, e.g., light sensor 52, is in the inactive area ([0048]) and the covering structure overlaps the inactive area (Fig. 3, [0049]).
Both Rochford and Zheng disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/ Rochford so that the forward-facing display 110 of Izumihara/ Rochford includes an active area surrounded by an inactive area that includes an optical component, with a covering structure covering the inactive area, as taught by Zheng, for protecting the entire display from the environment (re 44) and for blocking internal device components from view by a user through peripheral edge portions of 46 ([0049] in Zheng).
In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng the forward-facing display has a display cover layer that overlaps the active area and the inactive area and the covering structure is under the display cover layer (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
In the above device, the covering structure comprises a shroud that has a shroud trim 46 and a shroud canopy 44, wherein the shroud canopy 44 is clear polymer ([0043] in Zheng), the shroud trim 46 is dark polymer ([0049] in Zheng), the shroud canopy 44 is attached to the shroud trim 46 with adhesive, and the head-mounted device further comprises a coating 46 on an inner surface of the shroud canopy 44 overlapping the optical component 52 (Fig. 3, [0049] in Zheng. The member 46 is a coating/dark ink).
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose the shroud canopy is attached to the shroud trim with adhesive.
Wang discloses a head mounted display (Fig. 1, [0021]-[0022]). In one embodiment, the HMD includes a display 44 mounted on housing 12, a sensor 56, and display cover layer 54 in that order. The sensor 56 is attached to the display 44 by an adhesive layer (Fig. 4, [0042]).
Both Rochford and Wang disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the shroud canopy is attached to the shroud trim with adhesive, as taught by Wang, for securing together the two structural components.
Regarding claim 7, Izumihara discloses a head-mounted device 10 (Fig. 1B), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure 320 ([0057]);
a first display 313a supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 and configured to provide a first image to a first eye box ([0059]);
a second display 313b supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 and configured to provide a second image to a second eye box ([0059]);
a first lens and a second lens supported by the head-mounted structure ([0003]).
Izumihara does not disclose a forward-facing display supported on a front side of the head-mounted support structure.
Rochford discloses a head mounted device (Fig. 1) comprising a forward-facing display 110 supported by on a front side of the head mounted support structure ([0016]).
Both Izumihara and Rochford disclose head-mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara so that the head mounted device includes a forwards-facing display, as taught by Rochford, for allowing a person other than the user to interact with the user ([0012] in Rochford).
In Izumihara/Rochford the forward-facing display has a display cover layer that overlaps the active area and the inactive area and the covering structure is under the display cover layer (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
Izumihara/Rochford does not disclose wherein the forward facing display has a ring-shaped inactive area surrounding the active area that does not display images; an optical component in the inactive area.
Zheng discloses an electronic device (e.g., a tablet) comprising a display that includes sensors (Abstract). In one embodiment, in Zheng, the electronic device includes a display 14 that comprises an active area 22 and inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0025]). The inactive area is ring- shaped surrounding the active area and does not display images as it covers sensors 18 (Fig. 1, [0027]). Moreover, in Zheng, a covering structure 44, 46 overlaps the active area 22 and the inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0043]). In Zheng’s display device, an optical component, e.g., light sensor 52, is in the inactive area ([0048]) and the covering structure overlaps the inactive area (Fig. 3, [0049]).
Both Rochford and Zheng disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford so that the forward-facing display 110 of Izumihara/Rochford includes an active area surrounded by an inactive area that includes an optical component, with a covering structure covering the inactive area, as taught by Zheng, for protecting the entire display from the environment (re 44) and for blocking internal device components from view by a user through peripheral edge portions of 46 ([0049] in Zheng).
In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng the forward-facing display has a display cover layer that overlaps the active area and the inactive area and the covering structure is under the display cover layer (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
In the above Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng device, the covering structure comprises a ring-shaped polymer structure 44, 46 that surrounds the active area 22, wherein the ring-shaped polymer structure has a recess 48 aligned with the optical component 52, wherein the ring-shaped polymer structure comprises first and second polymer members 46, 44, and wherein the recess is formed by a through-hole in the first polymer member 46 (Fig. 3, [0043], [0049] in Zheng).
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose the first and second polymer members are attached with adhesive.
Wang discloses a head mounted display (Fig. 1, [0021]-[0022]). In one embodiment, the HMD includes a display 44 mounted on housing 12, a sensor 56, and display cover layer 54 in that order. The sensor 56 is attached to the display 44 by an adhesive layer (Fig. 4, [0042]).
Both Rochford and Wang disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the first and second polymer members are attached with adhesive, as taught by Wang, for securing together the two structural components.
Regarding claim 8, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang discloses the head-mounted device of claim 7, wherein the second polymer member 44 comprises clear polymer that overlaps the through-hole 48 in the first polymer member 46 (Fig. 3, [0043] in Zheng).
Regarding claim 9, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang discloses the head-mounted device of claim 8, further comprising a coating 46 on an inner surface of the clear polymer 44 that overlaps the through-hole 48 (Fig. 3, [0049] in Zheng).
Regarding claim 10, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang discloses the head-mounted device of claim 9, wherein the first polymer member 46 comprises black polymer (Fig. 3, [0049] in Zheng).
Claims 13, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumihara, Rochford, Zheng, and Wang.
Regarding claim 13, Izumihara discloses a head-mounted device 10 (Fig. 1B), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure 320 ([0057]);
rear-facing displays 313a, 313b supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 that are configured to provide visual content to eye boxes at a rear side of the head-mounted support structure ([0059]);
Izumihara does not disclose a forward-facing display supported on a front side of the head-mounted support structure.
Rochford discloses a head mounted device (Fig. 1) comprising a forward-facing display 110 supported by on a front side of the head mounted support structure ([0016]).
Both Izumihara and Rochford disclose head-mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara so that the head mounted device includes a forwards-facing display, as taught by Rochford, for allowing a person other than the user to interact with the user ([0012] in Rochford).
In Izumihara/Rochford, the forward-facing display has a display cover layer that overlaps the active area and the inactive area (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
Izumihara/Rochford does not disclose wherein the publicly viewable forward-facing display has an active area containing pixels configured to display an image and has a ring-shaped inactive area without pixels that surrounds the active area;
a ring-shaped shroud member that is overlapped by the display cover layer in the inactive area and that surrounds the active area; and
optical components overlapped by the ring-shaped shroud member.
Zheng discloses an electronic device (e.g., a tablet) comprising a display that includes sensors (Abstract). In one embodiment, in Zheng, the electronic device includes a display 14 that comprises an active area 22 and inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0025]). The inactive area is ring shaped surrounding the active area and does not display images as it covers sensors 18 (Fig. 1, [0027]). Moreover, in Zheng, a covering structure 44, 46 overlaps the active area 22 and the inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0043]). In Zheng’s display device, an optical component, e.g., light sensor 52, is in the inactive area ([0048]) and the covering structure overlaps the inactive area (Fig. 3, [0049]).
Both Rochford and Zheng disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford so that the forward-facing display 110 of Rochford includes an active area surrounded by an inactive area that includes an optical component, with a covering structure covering the inactive area and the active area, as taught by Zheng, for protecting the entire display from the environment (re 44) and for blocking internal device components from view by a user through peripheral edge portions of 46 ([0049] in Zheng).
Finally, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose the ring-shaped shroud member is interposed between first and second layers of adhesive.
Wang discloses a head mounted display (Fig. 1, [0021]-[0022]). In one embodiment, the HMD includes a display 44 mounted on housing 12, a sensor 56, and display cover layer 54 in that order. The sensor 56 is attached to the display 44 by an adhesive layer (Fig. 4, [0042]).
Both Rochford and Wang disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the shroud member 46 of Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng is attached to housing 12 via an adhesive, as taught by Wang, for securing together the two structural components. In the above modified Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng device, the shroud has a first adhesive on one surface thereof.
Moreover, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang does not disclose a second adhesive, i.e., one between the shroud 46 and cover layer 44.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang so that an adhesive is interposed between shroud 46 and cover layer 44, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device (i.e., adhesive layers) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the above modified Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang device, the shroud is interposed between first and second layers of adhesive, providing a more secure fixing of the shroud to the device.
Regarding claim 19, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 13 further comprising a bracket 12 (supporting the optical components) under a portion of the ring-shaped shroud member 46, wherein the display cover layer has a nose bridge recess and wherein a first of the optical components is attached to the bracket on one side of the nose bridge recess and wherein a second of the optical components is attached to the bracket on an opposing side of the nose bridge recess (Fig. 3 in Zheng. The head-mounted device is worn on the viewer’s head so that the device, including the display cover layer 44 includes a portion that is over the user’s nose, with some of the optical sensors being located on one side and the rest on the other side).
Regarding claim 20, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 13 wherein the ring-shaped shroud member comprises a portion 48 that is transparent at a wavelength and wherein the optical components comprise an optical component 52 that receives light at the wavelength that has passed through the portion of the ring-shaped shroud member (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
Regarding claim 21, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 13.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang does not disclose wherein the ring-shaped shroud member has a surface with compound curvature.
In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/ Wang, the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member 46 appears to be flat (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
The surface of the ring-shaped shroud 46 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, blocking internal device components from external view (see, for example, [0049] in Zheng), thus, providing a better aesthetic view of the head-mounted device.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/ Wang discloses the claimed invention except for the type of the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang so that the ring-shaped shroud member has the claimed shape, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the shape of the ring-shaped shroud is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the aesthetic appearance of the head-mounted device.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the shape because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Moreover, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumihara, Rochford, Zheng, Wang in view of Shimokawa et al. (US 2020/0252532, hereinafter, “Shimokawa”).
Regarding claim 14, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 13 wherein the optical components comprise an ambient light sensor ([0027] in Zheng).
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang does not disclose wherein the optical components comprise a flicker sensor.
Shimokawa discloses an electronic device, e.g., a head-mounted device ([0039]). In one embodiment, Shimokawa discloses that the device may include a flicker sensor (Fig. 7, [0070], [0135]).
Both Rochford and Shimokawa disclose electronic display devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang so that the head-mounted device of Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang includes a flicker sensor, as taught by Shimokawa, for eliminating sudden changes in the luminous intensity outside the HMD ([0135] in Shimokawa).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumihara, Rochford, Zheng, Shimokawa.
Regarding claim 15, Izumihara discloses a head-mounted device 10 (Fig. 1B), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure 320 ([0057]);
rear-facing displays 313a, 313b supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 that are configured to provide visual content to eye boxes at a rear side of the head-mounted support structure ([0059]);
Izumihara does not disclose a publicly viewable forward-facing display supported on a front side of the head-mounted support structure.
Rochford discloses a head mounted device (Fig. 1) comprising a forward-facing display 110 supported by on a front side of the head mounted support structure ([0016]).
Both Izumihara and Rochford disclose head-mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara so that the head mounted device includes a forwards-facing display, as taught by Rochford, for allowing a person other than the user to interact with the user ([0012] in Rochford).
In Izumihara/Rochford, the forward-facing display has a display cover layer that overlaps the active area and the inactive area (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
Izumihara/Rochford does not disclose wherein the publicly viewable forward-facing display has an active area containing pixels configured to display an image and has a ring-shaped inactive area without pixels that surrounds the active area;
a ring-shaped shroud member that is overlapped by the display cover layer in the inactive area and that surrounds the active area; and
optical components overlapped by the ring-shaped shroud member, wherein the optical components comprise an ambient light sensor, and
a shroud canopy coupled to the ring-shaped shroud member, wherein the ambient light sensor is aligned with an opening in the ring-shaped shroud member and is covered by the shroud canopy.
Zheng discloses an electronic device (e.g., a tablet) comprising a display that includes sensors (Abstract). In one embodiment, in Zheng, the electronic device includes a display 14 that comprises an active area 22 and inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0025]). The inactive area is ring shaped surrounding the active area and does not display images as it covers sensors 18 (Fig. 1, [0027]). Moreover, in Zheng, a covering structure 44, 46 overlaps the active area 22 and the inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0043]). In Zheng’s display device, an optical component, e.g., light sensor 52, is in the inactive area ([0048]) and the covering structure overlaps the inactive area (Fig. 3, [0049]).
Both Rochford and Zheng disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Rochford so that the forward-facing display 110 of Rochford includes an active area surrounded by an inactive area that includes an optical component, with a covering structure 44, 46 covering the inactive area and the active area, as taught by Zheng, for protecting the entire display from the environment (re 44) and for blocking internal device components from view by a user through peripheral edge portions of 46 ([0049] in Zheng).
In the above Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng device, optical components are overlapped by the ring-shaped shroud member 46, wherein the optical components comprise an ambient light sensor 52, and a shroud canopy 44 coupled to the ring-shaped shroud member 46, wherein the ambient light sensor 52 is aligned with an opening 48 in the ring-shaped shroud member 46 and is covered by the shroud canopy 44.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose optical components comprise a flicker senor which is aligned with an opening in the ring-shaped shroud member and covered by the shroud canopy.
Shimokawa discloses an electronic device, e.g., a head-mounted device ([0039]). In one embodiment, Shimokawa discloses that the device may include a flicker sensor (Fig. 7, [0070], [0135]).
Both Rochford and Shimokawa disclose electronic display devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the head-mounted device of Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng includes a flicker sensor, as taught by Shimokawa, for eliminating sudden changes in the luminous intensity outside the HMD ([0135] in Shimokawa). In the above Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Shimokawa device, the through-hole 48 in the ring-shaped shroud member 46 may be aligned with the flicker senor underneath (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
Regarding claim 16, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Shimokawa discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 15, wherein the ring-shaped shroud member 46 has a through-hole opening 48 that is aligned with the optical components 52 (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Shimokawa does not disclose the shroud canopy having a through hole opening that is aligned with the optical component. In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/ Shimokawa, only the ring-shaped shroud member 46 has a through-hole opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/ Shimokawa so that the second shroud member 44 has an opening aligned with the optical components, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device (i.e., openings) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Providing an additional opening to the shroud covering the optical components improves the transmission/reception from/to the optical components.
Regarding claim 17, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Shimokawa discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 16, wherein the optical components comprise cameras (Fig. 4, [0058] in Izumihara).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumihara, Rochford, Zheng, Wang in view of Jia (US 2016/0054175, hereinafter, “Jia”).
Regarding claim 18, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 13 wherein the optical components comprise an ambient light sensor ([0027] in Zheng), wherein the ring-shaped shroud member 46 has a recess 48 through which the ambient light sensor measures ambient light (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang does not disclose a coating in the recess.
Jia discloses an electronic device 10 provided with light sensors 54 (Abstract, Fig. 2). In one embodiment, a sensor 54 is located below a display 14 which has a recess 22 through which the sensor communicates with the exterior ([0038]). A coating may be formed in the window structure 36 of the recess 22 ([0043]).
Both Rochford and Jia disclose electronic display devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng/Wang so that the recess 48 in Zheng includes a coating through which ambient light passes through, as taught by Jia, for inducing light scattering towards the light sensor ([0043] in Jia).
Claims 22-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumihara, Rochford, Zheng.
Regarding claim 22, Izumihara discloses a head-mounted device 10 (Fig. 1B), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure 320 ([0057]);
a first display 313a supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 and configured to provide a first image to a first eye box ([0059]);
a second display 313b supported by the head-mounted support structure 320 and configured to provide a second image to a second eye box ([0059]);
a first lens and a second lens supported by the head-mounted structure ([0003]).
Izumihara does not disclose a forward-facing display supported on a front side of the head-mounted support structure.
Rochford discloses a head mounted device (Fig. 1) comprising a forward-facing display 110 supported by on a front side of the head mounted support structure ([0016]).
Both Izumihara and Rochford disclose head-mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara so that the head mounted device includes a forwards-facing display, as taught by Rochford, for allowing a person other than the user to interact with the user ([0012] in Rochford).
Izumihara/ Rochford does not disclose wherein the forward facing display has an active area in which a third image is displayed and has a ring-shaped inactive area surrounding the active area that does not display images; an optical component in the inactive area; and a covering structure that overlaps the inactive area under a display cover layer.
Zheng discloses an electronic device (e.g., a tablet) comprising a display that includes sensors (Abstract). In one embodiment, in Zheng, the electronic device includes a display 14 that comprises an active area 22 and inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0025]). The inactive area is ring- shaped surrounding the active area and does not display images as it covers sensors 18 (Fig. 1, [0027]). Moreover, in Zheng, a covering structure 44, 46 overlaps the active area 22 and the inactive area 26 (Fig. 3, [0043]). In Zheng’s display device, an optical component, e.g., light sensor 52, is in the inactive area ([0048]) and the covering structure overlaps the inactive area (Fig. 3, [0049]).
Both Rochford and Zheng disclose electronic devices with displays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/ Rochford so that the forward-facing display 110 of Rochford includes an active area surrounded by an inactive area that includes an optical component, with a covering structure covering the inactive area and the active area, as taught by Zheng, for protecting the entire display from the environment (re 44) and for blocking internal device components from view by a user through peripheral edge portions of 46 ([0049] in Zheng).
In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng the forward-facing display has a display cover layer that overlaps the active area and the inactive area and the covering structure is under the display cover layer (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
In the above Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng device, the forward-facing display has pixels in the active area and wherein the covering structure comprises a polymer layer 46 that overlaps the pixels and that is between the pixels and the display cover layer (Fig. 3 of Zheng).
Regarding claim 23, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 22, wherein the polymer layer 44 is separated from the pixels by an air gap (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
Regarding claim 24, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 23, wherein the display cover layer is separated from the polymer layer by an additional air gap (Fig. 1B in Izumihara).
Regarding claim 25, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 24.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose the display cover layer has inner and outer surfaces of compound curvature overlapping the pixels.
In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng, the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member 46 appears to be flat (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
The surface of the ring-shaped shroud 46 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, blocking internal device components from external view (see, for example, [0049] in Zheng), thus, providing a better aesthetic view of the head-mounted device.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the claimed invention except for the type of the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the ring-shaped shroud member has the claimed shape, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the shape of the ring-shaped shroud is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the aesthetic appearance of the head-mounted device.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the shape because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Moreover, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 26, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 25.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose wherein the polymer layer has a developable surface that overlaps the pixels. In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng, the polymer layer 46 is in contact with the active area 22 (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
The parameter of the overlap between the polymer layer 46 and the active area 22 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the size of the opening 48, and thus, the amount of light incident on the light sensor 52.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed amount of overlap (greater than zero). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the overlap lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the overlap is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it improves the amount of detected outside light.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of overlap because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 27, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 22, wherein the optical component is one of multiple optical components in the inactive area (Fig. 1 in Zheng).
Regarding claim 28, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 27, wherein the optical components comprise cameras ([0058] in Izumihara).
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose wherein the display cover layer has a surface with compound curvature in the inactive area, and wherein the cameras are configured to capture images in different respective directions through respective portions of the surface of compound curvature.
In Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng, the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member 46 appears to be flat (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
The surface of the ring-shaped shroud 46 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, blocking internal device components from external view (see, for example, [0049] in Zheng), thus, providing a better aesthetic view of the head-mounted device.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the claimed invention except for the type of the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the ring-shaped shroud member has the claimed shape, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the shape of the ring-shaped shroud is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the aesthetic appearance of the head-mounted device.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the shape because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Moreover, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 29, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 22.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose wherein the polymer layer is configured to exhibit visible light transmission of 30-80%.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses that the polymer layer 44 transmits visible light ([0023] in Zheng).
The parameter of the amount of transmission through the polymer layer 41 is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting appearance of the information emitted by the display.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed amount of transmission of visible light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng so that the amount of transmitted visible light lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the amount of transmitted visible light is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it improves the appearance of the displayed information.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of transmitted visible light because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumihara, Rochford, Zheng, and Jia.
Regarding claim 30, Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 22.
Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng does not disclose wherein the polymer layer has a hazy coating overlapping the pixels.
Jia discloses an electronic device 10 provided with light sensors 54 (Abstract, Fig. 2). In one embodiment, a diffuser layer 78, i.e., a hazy coating with a haze value in the 30-95% range is disposed to overlap pixels of display 30 (Fig. 6, [0052]).
Both Rochford and Jia disclose electronic display devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Izumihara/Rochford/Zheng so that the polymer layer 44 in Zheng includes a hazy coating through which light passes through, as taught by Jia, for inducing light scattering towards the light sensor ([0043] in Jia).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest
the limitations of the independent claim in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102
or §103 would be proper, which include: (claim 11) " A head-mounted device, comprising: … a first adhesive layer having a first melting point and configured to attach the display cover layer to the ring-shaped polymer structure; and a second adhesive layer having a second melting point that is lower than the first melting point, wherein the second adhesive layer is configured to attach the ring-shaped polymer structure to the head-mounted support structure.".
Regarding claim 11, Zheng is silent as to the display cover layer 44 being attached to the
ring-shaped polymer structure 46 with a first adhesive layer and the ring-shaped polymer structure 46 being attached to the head-mounted support structure 12 with a second adhesive layer with a lower melting point.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the
payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue
fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”. Applicant’s comments in the received reply of 7/16/2026 are acknowledged.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, Applicant stated that “claims 1 and 13 have been amended as discussed during the telephone interview and are therefore currently allowable pending the Examiner's updated search”, see p. 1 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been fully considered. The rejection has been
withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and search, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Izumihara, Rochford and Zheng.
Regarding independent claims 2, 7, 15 and 22, upon further consideration and search, the allowance has been withdrawn, and a new ground of rejection is made in view of Izumihara, Rochford and Zheng.
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-21, 23-30 depend from claims 2, 7, 15 and 22 and are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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 on 571-272-2334. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights