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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/02/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusuda (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0124366).
With reference to claim 1, Kusuda discloses a head-mounted display device (1) (see paragraphs 27-28; Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a wearable support (8) configured to be worn on a head of a user (see paragraph 28; Figs. 1-2); and
a head-up display (11) mounted to the wearable support (8) by a hinge assembly (2, 3, 9, 70) (see paragraphs 29-32, 49; Figs. 1-2) the hinge assembly comprising:
a mounting component (70) connected to the wearable support (8) (see paragraph 49, Figs. 2, 5)
no more than a first pivot (2) and a second pivot (3) (see paragraphs 29-30; Fig. 2), and
a bar (9) connected to the mounting component (70) at the first pivot (2) and connected to the head-up display (11) at the second pivot (3) (see paragraphs 29-31; Fig. 2).
With reference to claim 9, Kusuda discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the hinge assembly further comprises an adjustment mechanism that allows a position of the first pivot relative to the mounting component to be adjusted (in teaching fastening by screwing of th socket (22); see paragraphs 51-52, 56; Figs. 1-2, 5-8).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tricoukes et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0114131; hereinafter Tricoukes).
With reference to claim 10, Tricoukes discloses a head-mounted display device (500) (see paragraphs 47-48; Figs. 5-6), comprising:
a wearable support (502) configured to be worn on a head of a user (see paragraphs 47-48; Figs. 5-6); and
a head-up display (528) mounted to the wearable support (502) by a hinge assembly (506, 508, 510) (see paragraphs 47, 50; Figs. 5-6), the hinge assembly comprising:
a mounting component (508) connected to the wearable support (502) (see paragraph 47; Figs. 5-6),
no more than a first pivot (510) and a second pivot (506) (see paragraph 47; Figs. 5-6),
a first bar (508) connected to the mounting component at the first pivot (510) (see paragraph 47; Figs. 5-6), and
a second bar (504) attached to the first bar (508) at the second pivot (506) and attached to the head-up display (528) (see paragraph 47; Figs. 5-6).
With reference to claim 15, Tricoukes discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the hinge assembly further comprises an adjustment mechanism (506) that allows a position of the first pivot relative to the mounting component to be adjusted (see paragraph 47; Figs. 2C).
Claim 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pombo et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0180895; hereinafter Pombo).
With reference to claim 16, Pombo discloses a head-mounted display device (20) (see paragraph 52; Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a wearable support (22) configured to be worn on a head of a user (see paragraph 52; Fig. 2); and
a head-up display (24) mounted to the wearable support (22) by a hinge assembly (56, 60), the hinge assembly comprising:
a mounting component (28) connected to the wearable support (22) (see paragraphs 52, 54; Fig. 2A),
a bar (26) connected to the mounting component (28) at a pivot (56) and connected to the head-up display (24) (see paragraphs 54-57; Figs. 2A-B);
a first adjustment mechanism (56) that allows a position of the pivot relative to the mounting component (28) to be adjusted (see paragraphs 54-57; Figs. 2A-B); and
a second adjustment mechanism (60) that allows a position of the head-up display (24) relative to the bar (26) to be adjusted (see paragraphs 54-57; Figs. 2A-B).
With reference to claim 17, Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 16, and further discloses wherein the pivot (56, 60) comprises a tilt mechanism that allows movement between a first deployed position and a second deployed position of the head-up display (see paragraphs 59-60; Fig. 2C).
With reference to claim 18, Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 17, and further discloses wherein the pivot comprises one or more hard-stops to restrict angular movement of the pivot, and wherein an angular position of the one or more hard-stops relative to a rotational axis of the pivot is adjustable (see paragraphs 59, 61-62, 65-68; Figs. 2C, 3, 5-6).
With reference to claim 20, Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 16, and further discloses wherein one or more of the first adjustment mechanism and the second adjustment mechanism comprises interlocking features to restrict movement of the corresponding mechanism when engaged (see paragraphs 65, 68; Figs. 5A-6B).
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 2, 4, 6-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusuda, or Tricoukes, as explained above with reference to claim 1 or 10, and further in view of Pombo.
With reference to claim 2, Kusuda discloses a first and second pivot as explained above, however fails to disclose a variable resistance mechanism as recited.
Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of wherein one or more of the first pivot (56) and the second pivot (58) comprises a corresponding variable resistance mechanism (see paragraphs 62, 68; Figs. 2C, 3, 6) that has less resistance through a transition point than other locations along one or more of a first path of travel of the heads-up display and a second path of travel of the heads-up display (see paragraphs 62, 68; Figs. 2C, 3, 6) , the first path of travel being from a deployed position (82) to a stowed position (84), and the second path of travel being from the stowed position (84) to the deployed position (82) (see paragraphs 59-61; Figs. 2C, 3, 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pombo to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Kusuda to thereby provide a securing position of the pivot members (see Pombo; paragraph 62).
With reference to claim 4, Kusuda and Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 2, wherein Pombo further discloses wherein the variable resistance mechanism comprises a corresponding friction collar (96) configured to generate a portion of a variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 62, 68; Fig. 3).
With reference to claim 6, Kusuda and Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 2, wherein Pombo further discloses wherein the variable resistance mechanism of the first pivot comprises a torsion spring (110) configured to generate a portion of a variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 65-67).
With reference to claim 7, Kusuda and Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 6, wherein Pombo further discloses wherein the torsion spring (110) is configured to bias movement of the first pivot opposite of gravity (see paragraphs 65; Fig. 2C, 5A).
With reference to claims 8 and 13, Kusuda or Tricoukes discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 1 or 10, however fail to disclose a stopper as recited.
Pombo discloses a head mounted display comprising an adjustable stopper (62, 64) that allows a position of a hard-stop on the first pivot (56) to be adjusted (see paragraphs 59-60; Figs. 2A-B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a stopper similar to that which is taught by Pombo to the head-mounted display similar to that taught by Kusuda and Tricoukes to thereby provide a securing position of the pivot members (see Pombo; paragraph 62).
With reference to claim 11, Tricoukes discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 10, and while disclosing an adjustment mechanism, there fail to be disclosure of a variable torque resistance as recited.
Pombo discloses a head-mounted display wherein one or more of the first pivot (56) and the second pivot (58) comprises a variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 61-62, 67-68; Figs. 2-3, 5-6).
With reference to claim 12, Tricoukes discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 10, and while disclosing an adjustment mechanism, there fail to be disclosure of a pivot type as recited.
Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device wherein the one or more of the first pivot (56) and the second pivot (58) comprises a corresponding one or more of a friction collar, cam mechanism, or a torsion spring (110) configured to generate at least a portion of the variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 65-67; Figs. 5).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusuda in view of Pombo, or Tricoukes, as applied to claim 2 or 10 above, and further in view of Ewer et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/01299104; hereinafter Ewer).
With reference to claim 3, Kusuda and Pombo disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 2, and while Kusuda discloses the first and second path of travel (see Figs. 1-2), there fails to be disclosure of different resistance profiles as recited.
Ewer discloses a screw and rod system of hinge joints that provide independent first and second ranges of motion (see abstract) wherein the first path of travel has a different resistance profile than the second path of travel (see paragraphs 49-50, 52-53, 56; Figs. 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a variable resistance hinge joints similar to that which is taught by Ewer to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Kusuda to thereby independent positioning of the joints (see Ewer, paragraph 47).
With reference to claim 14, Tricoukes discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 10, and while discloses wherein one or more of the first pivot (510) and the second pivot (506), there fails to be disclosure of detents as recited.
Ewer disclose a pivot arrangement which comprises one or more detents (346) (see paragraphs 52; Figs. 4-7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a variable resistance hinge joints similar to that which is taught by Ewer to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Tricoukes to thereby independent positioning of the joints (see Ewer, paragraph 47).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusuda in view of Pombo, or Pombo as applied to claim 2 or 18 above, and further in view of Lowry et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2006/0048337; hereinafter Lowry).
With reference to claim 5, Kusuda and Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 2, however fails to specifically disclose a cam mechanism as recited.
Lowry discloses a hinge assembly (10) wherein a variable resistance mechanism comprises a corresponding cam mechanism (22) configured to generate a portion of a variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 29-30; Figs. 1, 4-5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the usage of a variable resistance cam mechanism similar to that which is taught by Lowry to thereby provide alternative arrangements for providing resistance similar to that which is taught by Kusuda and Pombo at the hinge location (see Lowry; paragraphs 29-30).
With reference to claim 19, Pombo discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 18, however fails to specifically disclose an eccentric pin as recited.
Lowry discloses the tilt mechanism (10) comprises an eccentric pin and a control mechanism connected to the eccentric pin (see paragraph 23), the control mechanism comprising a frictional torque (see paragraphs 28, 39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the usage of a variable resistance cam mechanism similar to that which is taught by Lowry to thereby provide alternative arrangements for providing frictional torque for positioning the display similar to that which is taught by Pombo at the hinge location (see Lowry; paragraphs 29-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 with reference to claims 16-20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Pombo fails to teach a bar connected to the mounting component at a pivot and connected to the head-up display, a first adjustment mechanism and second adjustment mechanism as recited in claim 16. The examiner disagrees and find Pombo discloses these features in disclosing a bar (26) and first and second adjustment mechanisms (56, 60) that allows the display to be adjusted relative to the bar (see paragraphs 54-57; Figs. 2A-B). For these reasons the examiner finds that Pombo disclose the recited limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YEE et al. (US2023/0123520) discloses an electronic device hinge having a cam lock hinge having a locked pivot point, wherein the hinge includes a fist and second pivot point, and wherein the second pivot point has a rotational resistance that is less than a first rotational resistance of the first pivot (see paragraphs 39-67; Figs. 1-9)
WELLS (US5,003,300) discloses a head mounted display having an attachment mechanism for attaching the display unit to the head of the user, a support member connected to the attachment mechanism for supporting the display unit (see abstract; column 4, lines 34-column 6, line, 50; Figs. 1-7).
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 ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/ADE/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625