DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes the Applicant’s assertions that “The parties agreed that the proposed amendments would overcome the present rejections [during the interview of 03/03/2026]” (pg. 8 of the Remarks filed 04/03/2026) are not correct. With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102, the alleged “proposed amendments” were discussed during the interview in the form of suggestions by the Examiner and by the Applicant to avoid an ‘election by original presentation’ in the proposed amendments provided in the interview agenda (see Agenda filed in Office Action Appendix on 03/09/2026). Furthermore, the proposed amendments provided in the interview agenda do not match the formally filed amendments to the claims (see claims filed 04/03/2026). The Examiner did not agree that the proposed amendment appears would overcome the present rejections, as alleged by Applicant. Rather, during the interview of 03/03/2026, the Examiner suggested that incorporating details directed to the structures of the two members 1326-1328 (as shown in FIG. 13 and disclosed in ¶0096 of instant specification) may be helpful towards overcoming the rejections of record (see Examiner Interview Summary of 03/09/2026).
2. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 10-11), filed 04/03/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 as anticipated by Hatfield have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks also appear to be moot upon further consideration because the grounds of rejection maintained in light of a different portion of Hatfield’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 04/03/2026), as detailed below.
Applicant appears to make arguments that the Hatfield reference fails to disclose the newly recited limitation in claim 1 directed to “the adjustment mechanism comprising a foot connected to a frame via two arms” (see claims filed 04/03/2026). Applicant asserts “the Action cites to elements 932-938 depicted in FIGS. 9B and 9C of the Hatfield reference…and does not appear to teach the claimed physical structure of one foot connected to the frame via two arms. In rejecting a foot in claim 3, the Action again cites to element 934 of FIGS. 9A - 9C of the Hatfield reference…element 934 of the Hatfield reference does not appear to be connected to the frame via two arms” (pgs. 10-11 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and brings notice to the embodiment of FIGS. 5A-D disclosed by Hatfield, showing the adjustment mechanism configured to alter the distance (¶0064, 0072: the lateral stabilizer 540 may be a linear actuator, or other suitable positive displacement device…the lateral stabilizer 540 may be operated to, for example, change the position of the side portion 130b (e.g., further away from the display unit); ¶0058: The upper segment 536a of the peripheral structure 536 extends generally between the upper supports 538a, the side segments 536b each extend generally between one of the upper supports 538a and one of the lower supports 538b, and the lower segment 538c extends generally between the lower supports 538b. As the forward force F.sub.forward is applied to the upper segment 536a and/or the lower segment 536c of the peripheral structure 536, torque is transferred about the upper supports 538a and/or the lower supports 538b; see FIGS. 5B showing adjustment mechanism in 530 configured to alter the distance from first state in FIG. 5B to second state shown in FIGS. 5C-D), the adjustment mechanism comprising a foot connected to a frame via two arms (0063: the lateral stabilizers 540 [first arm] may be arranged outward of the supports 538 [second arm] and be coupled to the side segments 536b [foot] of the peripheral structure 536; ¶0060: The supports 538 may couple directly to the chassis 114 [connected to frame] of the display unit 110; see FIGS. 5B-D showing adjustment mechanism comprising a foot 536b connected to a frame 114 via two arms 540 & 538). See also MPEP § 2123 Section I, stating: "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Thus, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s narrow selection of certain paragraphs and/or certain embodiments of the Hatfield reference disclosure to argue a lack of anticipation and Applicant's arguments are insufficient to overcome the prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, as detailed further below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two arms must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-7 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 claim(s) 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.
Claim 1 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The replacement claims submitted 04/03/2026 were not filed with the original disclosure filed on 06/27/2023 and are therefore examined for new matter, see MPEP 608.04(b) and 714.01(e). Claim 1 limitation “the adjustment mechanism comprising a foot connected to a frame via two arms” amounts to prohibited new matter. Specifically, the limitation lacks support in the original specification and claims submitted 06/27/2023 because all embodiments corresponding to FIGS. 1-14 fail to disclose and/or depict any details directed to “two arms” as recited in claim 1 (See also corresponding Drawings objection directed to said limitation). Applicant’s Remarks (see pg. 8 filed 04/03/2026) stating that the aforementioned amendment is supported by originally filed claim 3, FIG. 13 and ¶0096 of the instant specification are not germane to the issue at hand, namely that the originally filed claims and disclosure appear to be completely silent with regard to any support in the disclosure for the newly amended limitation of the foot being connected to the frame “via two arms”. Rather, FIG. 13 of the as-filed Drawings and ¶0096 of the instant specification as cited by the Applicant disclose “a foot 1327 coupled to the frame 1310 via a variable length mechanism 1326 and a member 1328 fixed to the frame 1310 at one end and rotatably fixed to the foot 1327 at a second end via a pivot mechanism 1330”, and originally filed claim 3 (of 06/27/2023) recites “the adjustment mechanism comprising a foot disposed at least partially within the internal volume”. Thus, the ‘two arms’ as recited in newly amended claim 1 amount to prohibited new matter and Applicant’s remarks are insufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-7 fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim. Therefore, claims 1-7 fail to comply with the written description requirement and are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims be amended to recite limitations that are supported by the originally-filed specification.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatfield et al. (US 2020/0233453 A1; as cited in the IDS filed 01/02/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatfield discloses: A head-mountable device (¶0039: head-mounted display 100; FIGS. 5A-D) comprising: a display portion including a housing and a display (FIG. 1B, 5B; ¶0040-41: display unit 110 generally includes one or more displays 112 and a chassis 114…The chassis 114 may, for example, include an internal frame 114a and an outer housing 114b); a light seal extending from the housing and including a contact surface offset from the housing by a distance (FIGS. 1, 5; ¶0044, 0055-56: facial interface 130/430 may further be configured to block environmental light from the eyes E of the user; see e.g., FIGS. 1, 5 showing light seal 432 extending from the housing 114 and including a contact surface 432 offset from the housing by a distance); and an adjustment mechanism configured to alter the distance (¶0064, 0072: the lateral stabilizer 540 may be a linear actuator, or other suitable positive displacement device…the lateral stabilizer 540 may be operated to, for example, change the position of the side portion 130b (e.g., further away from the display unit); ¶0058: The upper segment 536a of the peripheral structure 536 extends generally between the upper supports 538a, the side segments 536b each extend generally between one of the upper supports 538a and one of the lower supports 538b, and the lower segment 538c extends generally between the lower supports 538b. As the forward force F.sub.forward is applied to the upper segment 536a and/or the lower segment 536c of the peripheral structure 536, torque is transferred about the upper supports 538a and/or the lower supports 538b; see FIGS. 5B showing adjustment mechanism in 530 configured to alter the distance from first state in 5B to second state shown in 5C-D); the adjustment mechanism comprising a foot connected to a frame via two arms (¶0063: the lateral stabilizers 540 [first arm] may be arranged outward of the supports 538 [second arm] and be coupled to the side segments 536b [foot] of the peripheral structure 536; ¶0060: The supports 538 may couple directly to the chassis 114 [connected to frame] of the display unit 110; see FIGS. 5B-D showing adjustment mechanism comprising a foot 536b connected to a frame 114 via two arms 540 & 538).
Regarding Claim 2, Hatfield discloses the head-mountable device according to Claim 1, as above. Hatfield further discloses: the light seal comprising a compliant sheath defining an internal volume (¶0055: The outer cover 432 is formed of one or more materials (e.g., layers) that are compliant to the shape of the face of the user (e.g., being flexible and/or compressible) and otherwise being suitable for engagement with the face of the user; ¶0057: Referring to FIGS. 5A-5C, a facial interface 530 includes an internal force distributor 534, which functions to transfer force and cause movement in the manners described above for the facial interface 430; see FIGS. 5A-D showing light seal 530 comprising compliant sheath 432 defining internal volume).
Regarding Claim 3, Hatfield discloses the head-mountable device according to Claim 2, as above. Hatfield further discloses: the foot is disposed at least partially within the internal volume (¶0057-60; see FIGS. 5B-D showing adjustment mechanism comprising a foot 536 disposed at least partially within the internal volume defined by sheath 432).
Regarding Claim 4, Hatfield discloses the head-mountable device according to Claim 3, as above. Hatfield further discloses: further comprising the frame coupled to the housing (¶0041: the chassis 114 forms a primary structure that supports the displays 112 in proper position relative to eyes E of the user…outer housing 114b, for example, forms a housing (e.g., a cover) that may hide the internal frame 114a), wherein the foot connects to the frame and an angle of the foot relative to the frame is adjustable (¶0058; ¶0063: lateral stabilizers 540 transfer force between the side segments 536b of the peripheral structure 536 and the display unit 110 directly…to controlling angular displacement; see FIGS. 5B showing foot 536b connects to the frame 114 and see FIGS. 5C-D showing adjustable angle of the foot relative to the frame).
Regarding Claim 5, Hatfield discloses the head-mountable device according to Claim 1, as above. Hatfield further discloses: wherein: the housing defines an external surface of the display portion; the housing is coupled to the frame; and the adjustment mechanism is coupled to the frame (¶0041: The internal frame 114a is coupled to and supports the displays 112. The outer housing 114b, for example, forms a housing (e.g., a cover)…The chassis 114 may, for example, include an internal frame 114a and an outer housing 114b; see FIGS 1B & 5A-D showing housing 114b defining an external surface of the display portion 110 and is coupled to the frame 114a, wherein the adjustment mechanism 530 is coupled to the frame).
Regarding Claim 6, Hatfield discloses the head-mountable device according to Claim 5, as above. Hatfield further discloses: wherein the adjustment mechanism is coupled to the frame and extends into the light seal (¶0055-56; see FIGS. 1B & 5 showing adjustment mechanism 530 coupled to frame 114a and extending into light seal 432).
Regarding Claim 7, Hatfield discloses the head-mountable device according to Claim 6, as above. Hatfield further discloses: wherein the light seal hides the adjustment mechanism from view (¶0055-56: The outer cover 432 engages the face of the user and may also cover underlying mechanisms; see FIGS. 5B-D showing light seal 432 hiding adjustment mechanism 536-540 from view).
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights