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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-30 and 34-36 remain pending in the application. Claims 1,10,13-14,16-17, 19, 29-30 and 35 have been amended by the Applicant. Claims 1-18 and 29-30 were previously withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 202, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on Provisional Application 63505658, filed 06/01/2023, and Provisional Application 63482957, filed 02/02/2023.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 19-20, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (hereafter Olson, of record see IDS dated 07/09/2024) WO 2022093405 A2, referenced as US 20230314808 A1 in view of Maric et al. (hereafter Maric) US 20210325680 A1.
In regard to independent claim 19, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) a head-mounted device (head mounted device, system 10,8 abstract, paragraphs [03-07, 22-30,32-40, 45-49,59-61,67-86]), comprising:
a head-mounted device housing (housing support structure 26,26M, interior region 42 of the device 10, e.g. paragraphs [24-26, 65-86], e.g. Figs. 1,3,8);
an optical component (display 14R,14P, component(s) 104, e.g. paragraphs [24-26, 32-33, 65-86], e.g. Figs. 1,8);
a cover layer (cover layer 92, next to shroud trim/canopy 100A,B, paragraphs [46-48,67-71,75-86], Figs. 7-8) that overlaps the head-mounted device housing and the optical component (as 92 next to 100A,B overlaps 26,26M and 14P,R, 104, paragraphs [67-71,75-86], Figs. 7-8), wherein the cover layer has opposing first and second surfaces and an edge surface that extends between the first and second surfaces (i.e. as 92 next to 100A,B has opposite 1st and 2nd surfaces and edge surface between them, see paragraphs [67-71,75-86], Figs. 7-8);
a shroud coupled to the head-mounted device housing between the head-mounted device housing and the cover layer ( as shroud trim/canopy 100A,B of head mounted device 10, 8 coupled to housing 26,26M and cover layer 92, e.g. paragraphs [46-48,67-71,75-86], Figs. 7-8); and
an edge seal on the edge surface (adhesive 124, 122 on 100A,B and touching the end of edge surface of 92, paragraphs [77-80], Figs. 8,11), wherein the edge seal is interposed between the edge surface and the head- mounted device housing (as adhesive 124 and 122 are interposed between edge surface of 92 and 100A,B and 26,26M, paragraphs [77-80], as best depicted in Fig. 8), but Olson does not explicitly teach that the edge seal (122,124) is on the edge surface of the cover layer between the edge surface and the shroud (i.e. as adhesive 122 is on and touching the bottom edge of the edge surface of 92 and is between the part of the bottom surface of 92 and the shroud 100,A,B, paragraphs [77-80], as best depicted in Fig. 8).
However, Maric teaches in the same family of inventions of a head-mounted electronic device (see Figs. 1-13,17-20, title, abstract, paragraphs [04-07,29-39, 49-59,65-71]) and further teaches that the edge seal (122,124) is on the edge surface of the cover layer between the edge surface and the shroud (i.e. as the adhesive 134 extends over and is directly on the edge surface of display cover layer structures 130,82 and is between the edge surface of 130 and the structure 132 as part of chassis/trim part 12I, providing joining of these structures and to help form a rigid connection providing that overall resistance of housing portion to deformation may be reduced, as depicted in Figs. 20, 10, 4-5, paragraphs [59,65-71,49-59]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and extend the edge seal adhesive of Olson to be on the edge surface of the cover layer between the edge surface and the shroud according to teachings of Maric in order to provide joining of these structures and help form a rigid connection and further to provide that overall resistance of housing portion/chassis, trim to deformation may be reduced (see Maric paragraphs [65-70]).
Regarding claim 20, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the cover layer includes a laminate on the first surface of the cover layer (i.e. as 92 on 100A,B includes laminated material, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67-69,79-80]).
Regarding claim 26, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the laminate overlaps the edge seal (i.e. as 92,100A,B overlaps 124,122 e.g. in y-direction as depicted in Figs. 7-8, see paragraphs [67-71,75-86]).
Regarding claim 27, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that a portion of the edge seal is in contact with the laminate (as 92 with polymer layer(s) coupled to glass layer in contact with seal 122 and over 100A in contact with 124, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67,76,80], Figs. 7-8).
Claims 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (hereafter Olson, of record see IDS dated 07/09/2024) WO 2022093405 A2, referenced as US 20230314808 A1 in view of Maric et al. (hereafter Maric) US 20210325680 A1 and in view of Travers et al. (hereafter Travers) US 20210103146 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the cover layer further includes a glass layer (as cover 92,100A,B includes glass layer, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67,76,80]) the laminate comprises a polymer layer coupled to the glass layer (as 92 with polymer layer(s) coupled to glass layer, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67,76,80]), and a hard coat on the polymer layer (i.e. as laminate polymer film/multilayer includes rigid polymer layer that resists scratching, on another polymer layer, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67,76,80]), but Olson does not specify that polymer layer coupled with an ultraviolet-curable adhesive.
However, Travers teaches in the same field of invention of AR display system (see Figs. 1-10, abstract, paragraphs [6-7,50-55, 86-90]) and further teaches that polymer layer coupled with an ultraviolet-curable adhesive (i.e. as polymer waveguides 89, 90,96 are coupled with UV curable adhesive, providing parallel stack structure that is suitable for optical performance and allowing application of UV adhesive around or near the perimeter of the stack, see paragraphs [86-90]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and apply coupling of polymer layer to glass layer of Olson by using UV curable adhesive according to teachings of Travers in order to provide parallel stack structure that is suitable for optical performance and allowing application of UV adhesive around or near the perimeter of the stack (see Travers, paragraphs [86-90]).
Regarding claim 22, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the hard coat forms an outermost layer of the laminate (i.e. as laminate polymer film/multilayer includes rigid polymer layer that resists scratching, on glass and on another polymer layer, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67,76,80]).
Regarding claim 23, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) the hard coat (i.e. as rigid polymer layer that resists scratching, on another polymer layer, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67,76,80]) but is silent that it comprises antismudge material.
However, Travers teaches in the same field of invention of AR display system (see Figs. 1-10, abstract, paragraphs [6-7,50-55, 86-90]) and further teaches that hard coat comprises antismudge material (i.e. as cover 78 includes “smudge” proof coating preventing oil or dirt on optical stack, allowing the quality of the image to be less affected by the environment, see paragraphs [90-91]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and apply the hard coat/rigid polymer of cover layer of Olson with antismudge/smudge proof material according to teachings of Travers in order to prevent oil or dirt on optical stack, and allow the quality of the image of the display device to be less affected by the environment, see paragraphs [90-91]).
Regarding claim 25, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that rein the edge seal overlaps an edge of the hard coat and the polymer layer (i.e. as 124, 122, overlap rigid polymer layer and another polymer layer of 92 e.g. in y-, x- directions as depicted in Figs. 7-8, see paragraphs [67-71,75-86])
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (hereafter Olson, of record see IDS dated 07/09/2024) WO 2022093405 A2, referenced as US 20230314808 A1 in view of Maric et al. (hereafter Maric) US 20210325680 A1, in view of Travers et al. (hereafter Travers) US 20210103146 A1 and further in view of Kim et al. (hereafter Kim) US 20190033494 A1.
Regarding claim 24, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) the polymer layer and hard coat (as 92 with polymer layer(s) coupled to glass layer, and rigid polymer layer that resists scratching, on another polymer layer, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67,76,80]), but is silent that polymer layer comprises polymethyl methacrylate, and the hard coat comprises acrylic. However, Kim teaches in the same field of invention of display electronic devices with protective film (see Figs. 1-6, abstract, paragraphs [5-12,30-40,46-58]) and further teaches that polymer layer comprises polymethyl methacrylate, and the hard coat comprises acrylic (i.e. as protective film polymer includes polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) laminate, and hard coating includes acrylic material, paragraphs [54,58,62,129]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt polymer layer and hard coat of Olson to include polymethyl methacrylate as polymer, and the hard coat to include acrylic according to teachings of Kim in order provide reduced manufacturing cost of protective film (by using PMMA laminate), and prevent the protective film base from being damaged (e.g., worn down) by scratches or other forceful contacts caused by application of external force (see Kim, paragraphs [7, 54,58,62,129]).
Claims 28, 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (hereafter Olson, of record see IDS dated 07/09/2024) WO 2022093405 A2, referenced as US 20230314808 A1 in view of Maric et al. (hereafter Maric) US 20210325680 A1 and in view of Wang et al. (hereafter Wang) US 20210175464 A1.
Regarding claims 28 and 34, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) that the edge seal comprises adhesive (124,122 and as modified by Maric, see claim 19 above) but is silent that it comprises a ductile epoxy and epoxy material on the edge surface.
However, Wang teaches in the same field of invention of encapsulation structure display (see Figs. 1-15, abstract, paragraphs [5-30, 63-72]) and further teaches that the edge seal comprises a ductile epoxy and epoxy material on the edge surface (i.e. as edge encapsulation 104 may be resin and epoxy, providing edge protection for the display structures as base and film layers, abstract, paragraphs [5-30, 63-72], Figs. 7-9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the edge seal adhesive of Olson to include ductile epoxy and epoxy material on the edge surface according to teachings of Wang in order to provide edge protection against moisture and oxidation for the display structures as base and film layers, abstract, paragraphs [5-30, 63-72], Figs. 7-9). Further, these are known materials and known properties of binding strength, mouldability, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The benefits of these materials/qualities include binding strength, mouldability, and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 35, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) the cover layer includes a laminate on the first surface (i.e. as 92 on 100A,B includes laminated material, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67-69,79-80]), and wherein the edge seal completely covers the edge surface of the cover layer (as adhesive 124, 122 covers edge surface of 100A,B,92, paragraphs [77-80], as best depicted in Fig. 8), but Olsen is not specific that it covers an edge portion of the laminate.
However, Wang teaches in the same field of invention of encapsulation structure display (see Figs. 1-15, abstract, paragraphs [5-30, 63-72]) and further teaches that the edge seal material covers an edge portion of the laminate (i.e. as edge encapsulation 104 material as e.g. resin, epoxy etc., cover edge portion of laminate i.e. encapsulation film 1123 e.g. films 102,102,103, providing edge cover and protection against moisture and oxidation for the display structures as base and film layers, abstract, paragraphs [5-30, 63-72], Figs. 7-9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the edge seal adhesive of Olson to include ductile epoxy and epoxy material on the edge surface according to teachings of Wang in order to provide edge cover and protection against moisture and oxidation for the display structures as base and film layers, abstract, paragraphs [5-30, 63-72], Figs. 7-9).
Regarding claim 36, Olson teaches (see Figs. 1-11) the cover layer includes a laminate on the first surface (i.e. as 92 on 100A,B includes laminated material, paragraphs [46-48,59-60,67-69,79-80]), but it is not specific that it has a second laminate on the second surface. However, Wang teaches in the same field of invention of encapsulation structure display (see Figs. 1-15, abstract, paragraphs [5-30, 63-72]) and further a second laminate on the second surface (i.e. as bottom film 141 may be attached on a side of the base substrate 100 away from the device to be encapsulated as 2123 for protection and providing protection against moisture and oxidation for the display structures as base substrate, abstract, paragraphs [5-30, 63-72, 92], Figs. 13E-15).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the 92 on 100A,B includes laminated material of base cover of Olson to include a second laminate on the second surface according to teachings of Wang in order to provide protection and protect against moisture and oxidation for the display structures as base substrate, (see Wang paragraphs [5-30, 63-72, 92], Figs. 13E,15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on the Remarks dated 06/03/2026 with respect to claim 19 and its dependent claims 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.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights