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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 02/16/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 10/14/2025 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Final rejection is made by taking into fully
consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
On page 6 of the remarks filed on 02/16/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that Kwak does not disclose 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns and therefore does not anticipate Claim 1. This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the 102 rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of 103 rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the previously applied prior art reference of Kwak. Kwak teaches 180 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 600 microns. While Kwak fails to explicitly teach a range of 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in dimensions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimension is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the applicant has not provided any experimental evidence to demonstrate that the claimed center-to-center pitch range renders unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range through routine optimization to have 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns. Doing so would ensure sufficient space exists between pixels thereby improving the transparency of the display system. In addition, a new ground of 112(a) rejection is also made for Claim 1. A new ground of rejection is also made for all claims dependent on Claim 1.
On page 6 of the remarks filed on 02/16/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection of Claim 14, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns. This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the 102 rejection of Claim 14 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of 103 rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied prior art references of Lin and Kwak. Kwak teaches 180 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 600 microns. While Kwak fails to explicitly teach a range of 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in dimensions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimension is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the applicant has not provided any experimental evidence to demonstrate that the claimed center-to-center pitch range renders unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range through routine optimization to have 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns. Doing so would ensure sufficient space exists between pixels thereby improving the transparency of the display system. A new ground of rejection is also made for all claims dependent on Claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recites the limitation “with 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns”. However, according to paragraph 0055 of the originally filed disclosure, 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 500 microns and thus does not suggest or disclose L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns either in the form of narrower ranges or specific embodiments close to L = 150 microns.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (KR 20190042978 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kwak discloses a display device comprising:
a front surface comprising a transparent display area (see annotated Fig. 1: transparent display area, paragraph 0034 in English Translation of Kwak),
the transparent display area comprising an array of microLEDs 20 arranged in rows with a center-to-center pitch distance L = a + b along each row (see annotated Fig. 1: 20, paragraph 0034 in English Translation of Kwak);
and three or more sides A, B, C, D of the display device forming an outer perimeter of the front surface (see annotated Fig. 1: A, B, C, D, paragraph 0047 in English Translation of Kwak),
the transparent display area extending to all but one of the sides C of the display device forming the outer perimeter of the front surface (see annotated Fig. 1: C).
Kwak fails to explicitly teach with 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns.
However, Kwak teaches a display device, wherein 180 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 600 microns (see paragraph 0043 in English Translation of Kwak). Note that Kwak teaches 30 microns < a < 100 microns, and 150 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] b [Symbol font/0xA3] 500 microns (see Fig. 1: a, b, paragraph 0043 in English Translation of Kwak), therefore, 180 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L = a + b [Symbol font/0xA3] 600 microns.
While Kwak fails to explicitly teach a range of 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in dimensions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimension is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Since the applicant has not provided any experimental evidence to demonstrate that the claimed center-to-center pitch range renders unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range through routine optimization to have 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns. Doing so would ensure sufficient space exists between pixels thereby improving the transparency of the display system.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
PNG
media_image1.png
817
1065
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Kwak (KR 20190042978 A)
Regarding Claim 2, Kwak teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the transparent display area is at least 65% transmissive for visible light (see paragraph 0038 in English Translation of Kwak).
Note that in paragraph 0038, Kwak teaches the transparent display area is at least 50 % transmissive for visible light. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the transparent display area to be at least 65% transmissive for visible light.
Regarding Claim 3, Kwak teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the transparent display area is at least 85% transmissive for visible light.
Note that in paragraph 0038, Kwak teaches the transparent display area is at least 50 % transmissive for visible light. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the transparent display area to be at least 85% transmissive for visible light.
Regarding Claim 4, Kwak discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the front surface comprises: a power electronics 30, 40 area arranged adjacent the transparent display area and along a portion of the perimeter of the front surface to which the display area does not extend; and conductive paths 22a, 22b extending from the power electronics area 30 into the transparent display area to power the microLEDs 20 (see Fig. 2: 22a, 22b, 30, 40, paragraph 0047 in English Translation of Kwak).
Regarding Claim 13, Kwak discloses the display device of claim 1, comprising a transparent substrate 10 on which the array of microLEDs is disposed (see annotated Fig. 1: 10, paragraph 0038 in English Translation of Kwak).
Claims 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20220384697 A1), in view of Kwak (KR 20190042978 A) .
Regarding Claim 14, Lin discloses a display system 1 comprising: at least first and second display devices D1, D2, D3 (see annotated Fig. 8: 1, D1, D2, D3 paragraph 0062) each comprising;
a front surface comprising a transparent display area AA, the transparent display area AA comprising an array of microLEDs 300 arranged in rows with a center-to-center pitch distance L along each row, three or more sides of the display device D1, D2, D3 forming an outer perimeter of the front surface, the transparent display area AA extending to all but one of the sides of the display device D1, D2, D3 forming the outer perimeter of the front surface (see annotated Fig. 8: 1, AA, D1, D2, D3, Fig. 5: 300, see paragraph 0062);
and a power electronics area 10’, 10’’ arranged adjacent the transparent display area AA and along a portion of the perimeter of the front surface to which the display area AA does not extend (see annotated Fig. 8: 10’, 10’’, AA, see paragraph 0063);
the first and second display devices D1, D2, D3 arranged adjacent each other with their display areas facing a same direction X/Y and their display areas AA in contact with each other to form an extended continuous display area spanning the display area AA of the first display device D1 and the display area AA of the second display device D2/D3 (see annotated Fig. 8: AA, D1, D2, D3, X, Y, see paragraph 0062).
Lin fails to explicitly teach with 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns.
Kwak teaches a display device, wherein 180 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 600 microns (see paragraph 0043 in English Translation of Kwak). Note that Kwak teaches 30 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] a [Symbol font/0xA3] 100 microns, and 150 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] b [Symbol font/0xA3] 500 microns (see Fig. 1: a, b, paragraph 0043 in English Translation of Kwak), therefore, 180 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L = a + b [Symbol font/0xA3] 600 microns.
While Kwak fails to explicitly teach a range of 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in dimensions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimension is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Since the applicant has not provided any experimental evidence to demonstrate that the claimed center-to-center pitch range renders unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range through routine optimization to have 80 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 150 microns. Doing so would ensure sufficient space exists between pixels thereby improving the transparency of the display system.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
PNG
media_image2.png
838
1406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Lin (US 20220384697 A1)
Regarding Claim 15, Lin discloses the display system 1 of claim 14, wherein the power electronics area 10’’ of the first display device D1 is on an opposite side of the extended continuous display area AA from the power electronics area 10’ of the second display device D2 (see annotated Fig. *: 10’, 10”, D1, D2, AA).
Regarding Claim 16, Lin discloses the display system 1 of claim 14, wherein the power electronics area 10’ of the first display device D1 is adjacent to the power electronics area 10’ of the second display device D3 (see annotated Fig. 8: 10’, D1, D3).
Regarding Claim 19, Lin, in a different embodiment, teaches the display system of claim 14, wherein the microLEDs 820, 822, 824 are grouped into pixels, each pixel comprising at least one red microLED 820, at least one blue microLED 824, and at least one green microLED 822 (see Fig. 8A: 820, 822, 824, paragraph 0127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the different embodiments of Lin in order to have the microLEDs be grouped into pixels, each pixel comprising at least one red microLED, at least one blue microLED, and at least one green microLED. Doing so would render full-color pixels within a single pixel.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (KR 20190042978 A), as applied to Claim 4 above, further in view of Cok et al. (US 20190333901 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kwak fails to teach the display device of claim 4, wherein the conductive paths 22a, 22b are transparent.
However, Cok et al. teaches a display device comprising conductive paths 58, wherein the conductive paths 58 are transparent (Fig. 8: 58, paragraph 0084).
Note that paragraph 0084 of Cok et al. teaches the conductive paths 58 are formed of transparent metal oxides.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kwak and Cok et al. in order to have the conductive paths be transparent. Doing so would ensure seamless transparency of the overall display device.
Regarding Claim 6, Kwak fails to teach the display device of claim 4, wherein the conductive paths have a width less than or equal to 30 microns transverse to a direction in which they extend.
However, Cok et al. teaches wherein the conductive paths 58 have a width less than or equal to 50 microns transverse to a direction in which they extend (Fig. 8: 58, paragraph 0086). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kwak and Cok et al. in order to have the conductive paths have a width less than or equal to 30 microns transverse to a direction in which they extend. Doing so would ensure the conductive paths are almost invisible thereby improving visual transparency of the display device.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (KR 20190042978 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Matthies et al. (US 20080174515 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kwak fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein microLEDs at the ends of each row are located at a distance L/2 (i.e., a + b)/2 from one of the sides of the display device to which the transparent display area extends.
However, Matthies et al. teaches a display device, wherein microLEDs at the ends of each row are located at a distance L/2 from one of the sides of the display device to which the transparent display area extends, where L is the center-to-center pitch distance (not shown in Figures, see paragraph 0154).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kwak and Matthies et al. in order to have the microLEDs at the ends of each row be located at a distance L/2 from one of the sides of the display device to which the transparent display area extends. Doing so would ensure the spacing between pixels across the gap between adjacent tiles is substantially the same as the pitch between pixels within the display tiles, as recognized by Matthies et al. (paragraph 0154).
Regarding Claim 9, while Kwak fails to explicitly teach the display device of claim 1, wherein L = 80 microns.
However, Kwak teaches wherein 180 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L [Symbol font/0xA3] 600 microns (see paragraph 0043 in English Translation of Kwak). Note that Kwak teaches 30 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] a [Symbol font/0xA3] 100 microns, and 150 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] b [Symbol font/0xA3] 500 microns (see Fig. 1: a, b, paragraph 0043 in English Translation of Kwak), therefore, 180 microns [Symbol font/0xA3] L = a + b [Symbol font/0xA3] 600 microns.
While Kwak fails to explicitly teach a value of L = 80 microns, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in dimensions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimension is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Since the applicant has not provided any experimental evidence to demonstrate that the claimed value renders unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the center-to-center pitch through routine optimization and choose a value of L = 80 microns. Doing so would ensure sufficient space exists between pixels thereby improving the transparency of the display system.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (KR 20190042978 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Cok et al. (US 20190333901 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kwak fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the microLEDs are grouped into pixels, each pixel comprising at least one red microLED, at least one blue microLED, and at least one green microLED.
However, Cok et al. teaches a display device, wherein the microLEDs 44 are grouped into pixels 40, each pixel 40 comprising at least one red microLED 44R, at least one blue microLED 44B, and at least one green microLED 44G (Fig 8: 40, 44, 44R, 44B, 44G, paragraph 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kwak and Cok et al. in order to have the microLEDs grouped into pixels, each pixel comprising at least one red microLED, at least one blue microLED, and at least one green microLED. Doing so would render full-color pixels within a single pixel.
Regarding Claim 12, Kwak teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the microLEDs 20 have side lengths a of 30 microns to 100 microns (see annotated Fig. 1: a, 20, paragraph 0043 in English Translation of Kwak), but fails to explicitly teach a range of 2 microns to 20 microns.
However, Cok et al. teaches a display device, wherein the microLEDs 44 have side lengths of 2 microns to 20 microns (see Fig. 8: 44, paragraph 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kwak and Cok et al. in order to have the microLEDs have side lengths of 2 microns to 20 microns. Doing so would yield display devices with ultra-high pixel density relevant for next-generation displays such as AR/VR headsets and smart watches.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (KR 20190042978 A), in view of Cok et al. (US 20190333901 A1), as applied to Claim 10 above, further in view of Zha (US 20210382226 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kwak and Cok et al. fails to teach the display device of claim 10, comprising 50 to 300 pixels per inch.
However, Zha teaches a display device, comprising 10 to 800 pixels per inch (paragraph 0039). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kwak, Cok et al. and Zha in order to have the display device of Kwak/Cok et al. comprise 50 to 300 pixels per inch. Doing so would enable the display device to render sharper images.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20220384697 A1) in view of Kwak (KR 20190042978 A), as applied to Claim 14 above, further in view of Matthies et al. (US 20080174515 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Lin and Kwak fails to explicitly teach the display system of claim 14, wherein: microLEDs at the ends of each row are located at a distance L/2 from one of the sides of the display device to which the transparent display area extends; and rows of microLEDs in the first display device are aligned with rows of microLEDs in the second display device to form continuous rows spanning the display area of the first display device and the display area of the second display device with a center-to-center pitch distance L along each such continuous row.
However, Matthies et al teaches a display device, wherein: microLEDs 830, 832, 834, 836 at the ends of each row are located at a distance L/2 from one of the sides of the display device to which the transparent display area extends (not shown in Figures, see paragraph 0072 and 0154, Fig. 1: 830, 832, 834, 836); and rows of microLEDs in the first display device 122 are aligned with rows of microLEDs in the second display device 124 to form continuous rows spanning the display area of the first display device 122 and the display area 124 of the second display device with a center-to-center pitch distance L along each such continuous row (see Fig. 1, Fig. 9, Fig. 8, paragraphs 0072, 0154).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Lin and Matthies et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would ensure the spacing between pixels across the gap between adjacent tiles is substantially the same as the pitch between pixels within the display tiles, as recognized by Matthies et al. (paragraph 0154).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20220384697 A1) in view of Kwak (KR 20190042978 A), as applied to Claim 14 above, further in view of Cok et al. (US 20190333901 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Lin et al. and Kwak fails to explicitly teach the display system of claim 14, wherein the microLEDs have side lengths of 2 microns to 20 microns.
However, Cok et al. teaches a display device, wherein the microLEDs 44 have side lengths of 2 microns to 20 microns (see Fig. 8: 44, paragraph 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Lin and Cok et al. in order to have the microLEDs have side lengths of 2 microns to 20 microns. Doing so would yield display devices with ultra-high pixel density relevant for next-generation displays such as AR/VR headsets and smart watches.
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 HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 04/09/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights