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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-9, 11-13, and 23-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 7, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franklin et al. (US 2020/0064635 A1).
In regard to claim 1, 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 (see e.g. paragraph [0030], Figure 2) having first and second display portions (i.e. left and right portions in Figure 2);
control circuitry 12 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0021]) configured to supply content using the display 14 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0021]);
first and second lens assemblies 70 (denoted “display modules”, see e.g. paragraph [0031]) wherein the first lens assembly 70 includes the first display portion (i.e. left portion 14, see e.g. Figure 2), and the second lens assembly 70 includes the second display portion (i.e. right portion 14, see e.g. Figure 2);
positioning circuitry 58 (denoted “right and left positioners”, see e.g. paragraph [0031] and Figure 2) configured to adjust a lens-to-lens spacing between the first and second lens assemblies 70 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0051] for adjusting lens module positions); and
sensor circuitry (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0027] where it is noted that sensors 16 may include sensor circuitry) configured to gather force sensor information in response to the first and second lens assemblies 70 applying a force to a nose (see e.g. paragraph [0034] for force sensors).
In regard to claim 14, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the positioning circuitry 58 comprises a motor 86 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraphs [0031], [0039] for motor in positioning circuitry), and
the sensor circuitry comprises a sensor 82 that measures a voltage and a current of the motor 86 to determine the force (see e.g. paragraph [0039] and Figure 5, where it is noted that a voltage is applied and current is measured when driving the positioners).
In regard to claim 15, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the positioning circuitry 58 is configured to move the first and second lens assemblies 70 toward the nose and is configured to stop moving the first and second lens assemblies 70 toward the nose in response to the force exceeding a threshold (see e.g. paragraph [0042] and note that the positioning circuitry moves the lens assemblies to match the user’s pupillary distance).
In regard to claim 16, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, and
wherein the positioning circuitry 58 is further configured to move the first and second lens assemblies 70 away from the nose by a gap in response to the force exceeding the threshold (see e.g. paragraph [0042] and note that lens assemblies may be backed off if moved into contact with a nose that has been sensed by a force circuit).
In regard to clam 17, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the sensor circuitry is coupled to the first and second lens assemblies 70 and configured to gather nose contact force information (see e.g. paragraph [0042] where it is noted that the sensor circuitry may be used to detect the position of the nose in order to provide the best pupillary distance without causing discomfort to the user).
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 2-4, 18, 19, 31-35, 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 2, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a nasal flap configured to separate the first and second lens assemblies from the nose.
However, Osman discloses (see e.g. Figures 3a-b):
a nasal flap 102c (denoted “flap”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) configured to separate the first and second lens assemblies 102b (denoted “optics”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) from the nose.
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 nasal flap configured to separate the first and second lens assemblies from the nose.
Providing the nasal flaps between the optical assemblies allows a more comfortable fit for the user of the device.
In regard to claim 3, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a first sensor interposed between the nasal flap and the first lens assembly and a second sensor interposed between the nasal flap and the second lens assembly.
However, Osman discloses the sensor circuitry comprises a first and second sensors 306 (denoted “flex sensor”, see e.g. Figure 3b and paragraph [0103]).
Further, 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., in view of Osman, with wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a first sensor interposed between the nasal flap and the first lens assembly and a second sensor interposed between the nasal flap and the second lens assembly, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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 the sensor circuitry comprises a first sensor interposed between the nasal flap and the first lens assembly and a second sensor interposed between the nasal flap and the second lens assembly.
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 4, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first and second sensors are direct force sensors.
However, Osman discloses
a first and second sensors 306 (denoted “flex sensor”, see e.g. Figure 3b and 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 wherein the first and second sensors are direct force sensors.
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 18, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, but fails to disclose
flexible structures coupled to the first lens assembly, wherein the sensor circuitry comprises strain gauges coupled to the flexible structures.
However, Osman discloses (see e.g. Figures 2, 3a,b):
flexible structures 102c (denoted “flaps”, see e.g. paragraph [0100]) coupled to the first lens assembly 102b, wherein the sensor circuitry comprises flex sensors 306 (see e.g. paragraph [0103]) coupled to the flexible structures 102c. 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.
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 flexible structures coupled to the first lens assembly, wherein the sensor circuitry comprises strain gauges coupled to the flexible structures.
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 19, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 18 above, and
wherein the lens-to-lens spacing is configured to be adjusted in a first direction (see e.g. paragraph [0018] for adjustment of lens to lens spacing).
Franklin et al. fails to disclose
the flexible structures extend in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Osman discloses
the flexible structures 102c extend in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (see e.g. Figures 2, 3a,b and note that both the flexible structures and the lens assemblies extend three dimensionally and will satisfy the limitation).
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 the flexible structures extend in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
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 31, 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):
first and second pixel arrays 14 (“denoted display”, see e.g. paragraph [0031], Figure 2) configured to display content (see e.g. paragraph [0031]);
left and right positioners 58 (see e.g. paragraph [0031] and Figure 2);
left and right lens assemblies 70 (denoted “display modules”, see e.g. paragraph [0031]) that are positioned respectively by the left and right positioners 58 (see e.g. Figure 2), wherein the left lens assembly 70 includes a left lens 72 (see e.g. paragraph [0033]) and the first pixel array 14 and wherein the right lens assembly 70 includes a right lens 72 (see e.g. paragraph [0033]) and the second pixel array 14 (see e.g. Figure 2);
left and right forces sensors 44 (denoted “proximity sensors, see e.g. paragraph [0034] and Figure 3);
control circuitry 12 configured to position the left and right lens assemblies 70 using the left and right positioners 58 based on information from the left and right force sensors 44 (see e.g. Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0031]-[0032],[0039], [0042]).
Franklin et al. fails to disclose
a nasal flap configured to separate a nose from the left and right lens assemblies;
a left force sensor adjacent to the left lens assembly;
a right force sensor adjacent to the right lens assembly.
However Osman discloses (see e.g. Figure 3a,b):
a nasal flap 102c (denoted “flap”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) configured to separate a nose from the left and right lens assemblies 102b (denoted “optics”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]);
a left force sensor 306 (denoted “flex sensor”, see e.g. Figure 3b and paragraph [0103]) adjacent to the left lens assembly 102b (see e.g. Figure 3b);
a right force sensor 306 (denoted “flex sensor”, see e.g. Figure 3b and paragraph [0103]) adjacent to the right lens assembly 102b (see e.g. Figure 3b).
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 nasal flap configured to separate a nose from the left and right lens assemblies; a left force sensor adjacent to the left lens assembly; a right force sensor adjacent to the right lens assembly.
Providing the nasal flaps between the optical assemblies allows a more comfortable fit for the user of the device, while 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 32, Franklin et al., in view of Osman, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 31, but fails to disclose
wherein the left and right force sensors are interposed between the nasal flap and the left and right lens assemblies, respectively.
However, 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., in view of Osman, with wherein the left and right force sensors are interposed between the nasal flap and the left and right lens assemblies, respectively, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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., in view of Osman, with
wherein the left and right force sensors are interposed between the nasal flap and the left and right lens assemblies, respectively.
Providing the nasal flaps between the optical assemblies allows a more comfortable fit for the user of the device, while 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 33, Franklin et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 31 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the left and right force sensors are integrated into the nasal flap.
However, Osman discloses (see e.g. Figure 3b):
wherein the left and right force sensors 306 are integrated into the nasal flap 102c (see e.g. Figure 3b).
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 the left and right force sensors are integrated into the nasal flap.
Providing the nasal flaps between the optical assemblies allows a more comfortable fit for the user of the device, while 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 34, Franklin et al., in view of Osman, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 31 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the left and right force sensors are interposed between the nasal flap and the nose.
However, 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., in view of Osman, with wherein the left and right force sensors are interposed between the nasal flap and the nose, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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., in view of Osman, with wherein the left and right force sensors are interposed between the nasal flap and the nose.
Providing the nasal flaps between the optical assemblies allows a more comfortable fit for the user of the device, while 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 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 to the optical portion and to 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. Figure 3b):
a plurality of blades 102c (denoted “flap”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) coupled to the optical portion 102b (denoted “optics”, see e.g. paragraph [0074]) and to 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 to the optical portion and to 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.
Claim 5 is 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) and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2017/0340773 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Franklin et al., in view of Osman, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the direct force sensors comprise resistors having interdigitated finger traces.
However, Ma et al. discloses
wherein the direct force sensors comprise resistors having interdigitated finger traces (see e.g. paragraph [0039] for a force sensor with interdigitated electrodes).
Given the teachings of Ma et al., 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., in view of Osman, with wherein the direct force sensors comprise resistors having interdigitated finger traces.
Providing a direct force sensor using a resistive structure would allow for the pressure to be detected between a user and the device so that a more comfortable fit may be obtained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 20-22, 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 dependent claim 10, the closest prior art references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, “wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a maximum distance that the first and second lens assemblies can be moved toward the nose based on a three- dimensional facial scan, and the positioning circuitry is configured to stop moving the first and second lens assemblies toward the nose after moving the maximum distance.”
In regard to dependent claims 20-22 the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the flexible structures are first flexible structures and the strain gauges are first strain gauges, the head-mounted device further comprising: second flexible structures that extend in the first direction, wherein the sensor circuitry further comprises second strain gauges coupled to the second flexible structures.”
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.”
Conclusion
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