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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 3/24/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 7, 11-13, 15 and 22.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-21, in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 22-30 are rejoined after the Amendment of 12/2/2025.
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 Rochford at al. (US 2017/0068500, hereinafter, “Rochford”) in view of Izumihara (US 2016/0054565, hereinafter, “Izumihara”) and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2016/0307542, hereinafter, “Zheng”) and Prest et al. (US 2018/0292864, hereinafter, “Prest”).
Regarding claim 1, Rochford discloses a head-mounted device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure 106c ([0015]);
a first display 108 supported by the head-mounted support structure 106c and configured to provide a first image to a first eye box ([0015]);
a second display 108 supported by the head-mounted support structure 106c and configured to provide a second image to a second eye box ([0021]);
a forward-facing display 110 supported on a front side of the head-mounted support structure ([0016]).
Rochford does not disclose a first lens and a second lens supported by the head-mounted structure.
Izumihara discloses a head-mounted device (Fig. 1B). In one embodiment, Izumihara discloses that the displays in the HMD are positioned in lens barrels, i.e., a lens is coupled with a respective display ([0003]).
Both Rochford and Izumihara 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 Rockford so that the two displays 108 of Rochford are coupled with respective lenses, as taught by Izumihara, for directing the images of the displays to the eye box in a desired way.
Rochford/Izumihara 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 and wherein the forward-facing display has a display cover layer that overlaps the active area and the inactive area;
an optical component in the inactive area; and
a covering structure that overlaps the inactive area under the 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 cover layer 44 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 a covering structure 46 overlaps the inactive area under the display cover layer 44 (Fig. 3, [0049]).
Both Rockford 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 Rockford/ Izumihara so that the forward-facing display 110 of Rockford/ Izumihara includes an active area surrounded by an inactive area that includes an optical component, with a display cover layer overlapping the entire display and a covering structure covering the inactive area, as taught by Zheng, for protecting the entire display from the environment (re the display cover layer) and for blocking internal device components from view by a user through peripheral edge portions of clear display cover layer 44 (re the covering structure, [0049] in Zheng).
Rockford/ Izumihara/ Zheng does not disclose the covering structure is separated from the display cover layer by an air gap.
Prest discloses an electronic display (Abstract). In one embodiment, display cover layer 140 may be formed over optical structures 134T, wherein an air gap exists between the display cover layer 140 and optical structures 134T (Fig. 19, [0092]-[0093]).
Both Rockford and Prest 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 Rockford/Izumihara/Zheng so that the covering structure 46 is separated from the display cover layer 44 by an air gap, as taught by Prest, for spreading more light rays (onto the light sensor 52) ([0078] in Prest).
Regarding claim 3, Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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, Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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, Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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, Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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, Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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, Fig. 19, [0092]-[0093] in Prest).
Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest does not disclose wherein the polymer layer has a surface with compound curvature.
In Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest, the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member 46 appears to be flat (Fig. 3).
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.
Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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 Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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, Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest does not disclose wherein the polymer layer has a developable surface overlapping the active area. In Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest, 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.
Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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 Rochford/Izumihara/Zheng/Prest 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 13, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford in view of Zheng.
Regarding claim 13, Rochford discloses a head-mounted device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a head-mounted support structure 106c ([0015]);
rear-facing displays 108 supported by the head-mounted support structure 106c that are configured to provide visual content to eye boxes at a rear side of the head-mounted support structure ([0015], [0021]);
a publicly viewable forward-facing display 110 supported on a front side of the head-mounted support structure 106c ([0016]).
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 display cover layer for the forward-facing display, wherein the display cover layer overlaps the active area and overlaps the ring-shaped inactive 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 cover layer 44 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 a ring-shaped shroud 46 overlaps the inactive area under the display cover layer 44 (Fig. 3, [0049]).
Both Rockford 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 Rockford so that the forward-facing display 110 of Rockford includes an active area surrounded by an inactive area that includes an optical component, with a display cover layer overlapping the entire display and a shroud member covering the inactive area, as taught by Zheng, for protecting the entire display from the environment (re the display cover layer) and for blocking internal device components from view by a user through peripheral edge portions of clear display cover layer 44 (re the covering structure, [0049] in Zheng).
Rockford/Zheng does not disclose wherein the ring-shaped shroud member is curved. In Rockford/Zheng the ring-shaped shroud member is flat.
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 Rockford/Zheng so that the ring-shaped shroud member is curved, since 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). A curved shroud would provide better coverage of the underlying inactive area which may be curved at the edges of the device (see Fig. 1 of Zheng).
Regarding claim 19, Rochford/Zheng 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, Rochford/Zheng 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, Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 13.
Rochford/Zheng does not disclose wherein the ring-shaped shroud member has a surface with compound curvature.
In Rochford/Zheng, the surface of the ring-shaped shroud member 46 appears to be flat (Fig. 3).
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.
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 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford, Zheng in view of Shimokawa et al. (US 2020/0252532, hereinafter, “Shimokawa”).
Regarding claim 14, Rochford/Zheng discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 13 wherein the optical components comprise an ambient light sensor ([0027] in Zheng).
Rochford/Zheng 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 Rockford/Zheng so that the head-mounted device of Rockford/Zheng includes a flicker sensor, as taught by Shimokawa, for eliminating sudden changes in the luminous intensity outside the HMD ([0135] in Shimokawa).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rochford, Zheng in view of Jia (US 2016/0054175, hereinafter, “Jia”).
Regarding claim 18, Rochford/Zheng 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 has a recess 48 through which the ambient light sensor measures ambient light (Fig. 3 in Zheng).
Rochford/Zheng 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 Rockford/Zheng 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7-11, 15-17 and 22-30 are 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 2) " A head-mounted device, comprising:… wherein the covering structure comprises a shroud that has a shroud trim and that has a shroud canopy…"; (claim 7) " A head-mounted device, comprising:… wherein the ring-shaped polymer structure comprises first and second polymer members attached with adhesive, and wherein the recess is formed by a through-hole in the first polymer member."; (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."; (claim 15) " A head-mounted device, comprising:… a shroud canopy coupled to the ring-shaped shroud member,…"; (claim 22) " A head-mounted device, comprising:… wherein the covering structure comprises a polymer layer that overlaps the pixels and that is between the pixels and the display cover layer.".
Claims 8-10, 16-17 and 23-30 depend from claims 7, 15 and 22 and are allowable for the reasons given above.
Regarding claim 2, Zheng is silent as to the covering structure comprising two parts, a
shroud trim 46 (corresponding to 100A in Fig. 11 of the specification) and, in addition, a shroud
canopy (corresponding to 100B in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng is silent as to the ring-shaped polymer structure 46 comprising
two parts, that is, a second part (corresponding to 100B in Fig. 11), in addition, to a first part 46
that includes the through-hole.
Regarding claim 11, Zheng is silent as to the display cover layer 44 being attached to the
ring-shaped polymer structure 46 (corresponding to 100A in Fig. 11) with a first adhesive layer
and the ring-shaped polymer structure 46 (corresponding to 100A in Fig. 11) being attached to
the head-mounted support structure 12 with a second adhesive layer with a lower melting point.
Regarding claim 15, Zheng is silent as to the head-mounted device further comprising a
shroud canopy (corresponding to 100B in Fig. 11) coupled to the ring-shaped shroud member 46,
the shroud canopy also covering the light sensor 52.
Regarding claim 22, Zheng is silent as to the covering structure 46 comprising a layer
(corresponding to 100B) that overlaps the pixels.
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 3/2/2026 are acknowledged.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant stated that “as shown in FIG. 3 of Zheng, opaque masking layer 46 is not "separated from the display cover layer by an air gap," as recited in claim 1. Zheng therefore does not make up for the deficiencies of Rochford and Izumihara”, see p. 18 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Prest.
Regarding independent claim 13 Applicant stated that “as shown in FIG. 3 of Zheng, opaque masking layer 46 is not "curved," as recited in claim 13. Zheng therefore does not make up for the deficiencies of Rochford”, see p. 19 of the Remarks.
Applicant's above argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. As explained above, a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 (and their dependents) is maintained.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 15 and 22 (and their dependents) written in independent form to include all the features of the respective independent claims and any intervening claims are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights