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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed June 3, 2026. Claims 17, 18, 20, 25, and 32-34 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-16, 19, 21-24, 26-31 and 35-38 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 6-9, 11-13, and 23, 24 and 26-30 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 35, applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 35, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, as set forth below, Franklin et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 35, except “a plurality of blades coupled between the optical portion and the trim ring; strain gauges on the plurality of blades, wherein the strain gauges are configured to gather force sensor measurements.” However, as set forth below Osman discloses (see e.g. annotated Figure 3b below and note that the blades are for example between the trim ring on the left and the optical portion on the right): a plurality of blades 102c (denoted “flap”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) coupled between the optical portion 102b (denoted “optics”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) and the trim ring (i.e. external edge of 102b in Figure 3b); flex sensors 306 (see e.g. paragraph [0103], Figure 3b) on the plurality of blades 102c, wherein the flex sensors are configured to detect flexing or movement of 102 (see e.g. paragraph [0103]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that strain gauges would be an art recognized equivalent of the flex sensors as taught by Osman in order to detect a position of a user’s nose region.
Therefore, claims 35 and 38 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities. In the limitation “a plurality of blades coupled between the optical portion and to the trim ring” should be “a plurality of blades coupled between the optical portion and the trim ring”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin et al. (US 2020/0064635 A1) in view of Osman (US 2018/0096533 A1).
In regard to claim 35, Franklin et al. discloses a head-mounted device 10 (denoted “electronic device”, see e.g. paragraph [0030] and Figure 2 for head mounting), comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a display 14 (“denoted display”, see e.g. paragraph [0031], Figure 2);
a lens assembly 70 (denoted “display modules”, see e.g. paragraph [0031]) that includes a portion of the display 14 (i.e. left or right portion, see e.g. Figure 2), wherein the lens assembly 70 includes an optical portion 72 (denoted “lenses”, see e.g. paragraph [0033] and Figures 2-3) and a trim ring (i.e. external ring of 70, unlabeled in Figure 3) that extends around the optical portion 72 (see e.g. Figure 3);
positioning circuitry 58 (denoted “right and left positioners”, see e.g. paragraph [0031] and Figure 2) configured to move the lens assembly 70 (see e.g. paragraph [0031]).
Franklin et al. fails to disclose
a plurality of blades coupled between the optical portion and the trim ring;
strain gauges on the plurality of blades, wherein the strain gauges are configured to gather force sensor measurements.
However, Osman discloses (see e.g. annotated Figure 3b below and note that the blades are for example between the trim ring on the left and the optical portion on the right):
a plurality of blades 102c (denoted “flap”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) coupled between the optical portion 102b (denoted “optics”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) and the trim ring (i.e. external edge of 102b in Figure 3b);
flex sensors 306 (see e.g. paragraph [0103], Figure 3b) on the plurality of blades 102c, wherein the flex sensors are configured to detect flexing or movement of 102 (see e.g. paragraph [0103]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that strain gauges would be an art recognized equivalent of the flex sensors as taught by Osman in order to detect a position of a user’s nose region.
Given the teachings of Osman, 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 device of Franklin et al. with a plurality of blades coupled between the optical portion and the trim ring; strain gauges on the plurality of blades, wherein the strain gauges are configured to gather force sensor measurements.
Providing sensors in the proximity of the nasal region of the user would allow for a more comfortable and precise fit of the device.
In regard to claim 38, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 35 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of blades of the plurality of blades is coupled to an associated one of the strain gauges.
However, Osman discloses (see e.g. Figure 3b):
wherein each of blades 102c of the plurality of blades 102c is coupled to an associated one of the flex sensors 306 (see e.g. Figure 3b). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that strain gauges would be an art recognized equivalent of the flex sensors as taught by Osman in order to detect a position of a user’s nose region.
Given the teachings of Osman, 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 device of Franklin et al. with wherein each of blades of the plurality of blades is coupled to an associated one of the strain gauges.
Providing sensors in the proximity of the nasal region of the user would allow for a more comfortable and precise fit of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In regard to claims 36 and 37, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the lens assembly further comprises: an intermediate trim piece between the optical portion and the trim ring, wherein first blades of the plurality of blades are coupled to the optical portion and the intermediate trim piece and second blades of the plurality of blades are coupled to the intermediate trim piece and the trim ring.”
Claims 1-5, 10, 14-16, 19, 21, and 22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
In regard to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5, 10, 14-16, 19, 21, and 22, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the sensor circuitry is coupled to the first and second lens assemblies and configured to gather nose contact force information; and flexible structures coupled to the first lens assembly, wherein the sensor circuitry comprises strain gauges coupled to the flexible structures, and wherein the flexible structures include first flexible structures that extend in the first direction and second flexible structures that extend in a second direction that is different from the first direction.”
In regard to independent claim 31, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the left and right force sensors are integrated into the nasal flap; and control circuitry configured to measure a force when the left and right lens assemblies press against the left and right force sensors, and to position the left and right lens assemblies using the left and right positioners based on the measured force information from the left and right force.”
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.”
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights