Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/433,195

ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 05, 2024
Examiner
CHOI, WILLIAM C
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
1031 granted / 1114 resolved
+24.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+4.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1135
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§102
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1114 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 2014/0375947 A1). In regard to claim 1, Park et al discloses a securement arm for a head-mountable device (page 3, section [0047] – page 4, section [0055], Figures 10-16, “202a”), comprising: a frame (page 4, sections [0066-0067], Figure 11, “200” & Figure 23A, “1515,” re: HMD “200” used for creating augmented reality environments in the shape of eyeglasses having a frame “1515” with described temple arms); a window secured to the frame (page 4, section [0067], Figure 23A, “1514,” re: optical see-through display); a plurality of arm segments extending from the frame (page 3, section [0049], Figures 10 & 11, “240a,b,c,d”); and a plurality of joints interconnecting the plurality of arm segments (page 3, section [0049], Figure 10, “244a,b,c,d”), wherein each joint of the plurality of joints comprises: adjacent first and second arm segments of the plurality of arm segments (page 3, section [0049], Figure 10, “240a,b,c,d” & “244a,b,c,d”); and a biasing member configured to provide a biasing force resisting a relative movement between the first arm segment and the second arm segment (page 3, sections [0050]-[0051], Figure 12, “246,” re: plate springs bias adjacent arm sections “240” and prevent folding of the adjacent arm section with respect to each other and prevent coiling of temple arms “202”). Regarding claim 8, Park et al discloses wherein: the securement arm is a first securement arm (page 3, section [0047] – page 4, section [0055], Figures 10-16, “202a”); and the head-mountable device further comprises a frame (page 4, sections [0066-0067], Figure 11, “200” & Figure 23A, “1515,” re: HMD “200” used for creating augmented reality environments in the shape of eyeglasses having a frame “1515” with described temple arms) and a second securement arm (Figures 10-16, “202b”), the first and second securement arms extending from the frame (Figure 11, “202a,b”). In regard to claim 10, Park et al discloses a wearable device (page 3, section [0047] – page 4, section [0055], Figures 10-16, “200”) comprising: a frame (page 4, sections [0066-0067], Figure 11, “200” & Figure 23A, “1515,” re: HMD “200” used for creating augmented reality environments in the shape of eyeglasses having a frame “1515” with described temple arms); and a pair of securement arms extending from the frame (Figure 11, “202a,b”), each securement arm of the pair of securement arms comprising: a plurality of arm segments (page 3, section [0049) comprising a proximal arm segment coupled to the frame (Figure 11, “202a,b”), a distal arm segment (Figure 11, “240d”), and an intermediate arm segment between the proximal arm segment and the distal arm segment (Figure 11, “240b,c”); and a plurality of joints interconnecting the plurality of arm segments, wherein each joint of the plurality of joints (page 3, section [0049], Figure 10, “244a,b,c,d”) comprises: adjacent first and second arm segments of the plurality of arm segments (page 3, section [0049], Figure 10, “240a,b,c,d”); and a biasing member configured to provide a biasing force resisting a relative movement between the adjacent first and second arm segments (page 3, sections [0050]-[0051], Figure 12, “246,” re: plate springs bias adjacent arm sections “240” and prevent folding of the adjacent arm section with respect to each other and prevent coiling of temple arms “202”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim(s) 9, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. Regarding claim 9, Park et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the head-mountable device comprises a projector configured to project light toward the window. However, Park et al teaches wherein it is desirable for a head-mountable device to comprise a projector configured to project light toward a window for the purpose of generating a display of the image data while a user also sees through the display optical systems for an actual direct view of the world (page 6, sections [0079] & [0082], Figures 24A,B, “1620”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the head-mountable device of Park et al to comprise a projector configured to project light toward the window since Park et al teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of generating a display of the image data while a user also sees through the display optical systems for an actual direct view of the world. In regard to claim 16, Park et al discloses an electronic device (page 3, section [0047] – page 4, section [0055], Figures 10-16, “200”) comprising: a viewing frame (page 4, sections [0066-0067], Figure 11, “200” & Figure 23A, “1515,” re: HMD “200” used for creating augmented reality environments in the shape of eyeglasses having a frame “1515” with described temple arms); an optically transparent window secured to the viewing frame (page 4, section [0067], Figure 23A, “1514,” re: optical see-through display); and a securement arm (page 3, section [0047] – page 4, section [0055], Figures 10-16, “202a”) extending from the viewing frame (Figures 10 & 11, “200”), the securement arm comprising: a plurality of arm segments (Figures 10 & 11, “240a,b,c,d”) including a first arm segment (Figures 10 & 11, “240a”), a second arm segment (Figures 10 & 11, “240b”), and a third arm segment (Figures 10 & 11, “240c”); and a plurality of joints interconnecting the plurality of arm segments (page 3, section [0049], Figure 10, “244a,b,c,d”), wherein each joint of the plurality of joints (page 3, section [0049], Figure 10, “244a,b,c,d”) comprises: adjacent arm segments of the plurality of arm segments (page 3, section [0049], Figure 10, “240a,b,c,d”); and a biasing member configured to resist an outward rotation of one of the plurality of arm segments away from the viewing frame (page 3, sections [0050]-[0051], Figure 12, “246,” re: plate springs bias adjacent arm sections “240” and prevent folding of the adjacent arm section with respect to each other and prevent coiling of temple arms “202”), but does not specifically disclose a projector secured to the viewing frame and an optical waveguide configured to direct light from the projector and displayed at the optically transparent window. However, Park et al teaches wherein it is desirable for electronic devices to comprise a projector secured to a viewing frame and an optical waveguide configured to direct light from the projector and displayed at the optically transparent window for the purpose of generating a display of the image data while a user also sees through the display optical systems for an actual direct view of the world (page 6, sections [0079] & [0082], Figures 24A,B, “1620, 1624, 1612”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the electronic device of Park et al to comprise a projector secured to a viewing frame and an optical waveguide configured to direct light from the projector and displayed at the optically transparent window since Park et al teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of generating a display of the image data while a user also sees through the display optical systems for an actual direct view of the world. Regarding claim 17, Park et al discloses wherein each joint further comprises a stop to limit an inward rotation of the one of the one of the plurality of arm segments towards the viewing frame (page 3, sections [0050]-[0051], Figure 12, “246,” re: plate springs bias adjacent arm sections “240” and prevent folding of the adjacent arm section with respect to each other and prevent coiling of temple arms “202”). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7, 11-15, and 18-20 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: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 2-5: a securement arm as claimed, specifically wherein the biasing member comprises an insert positioned at least partially between the first arm segment and the second arm segment. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 6: a securement arm as claimed, specifically wherein the biasing member comprises an elastomer cord extending along the plurality of arm segments. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 7: a securement arm as claimed, specifically wherein the biasing member comprises a shape memory material. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 11: a wearable device as claimed, specifically wherein the biasing member comprises an elastomer bumper positioned to compress when the pair of securement arms are splayed away from each other. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 12 and 13: a wearable device as claimed, specifically comprising a groove extending contiguously along the plurality of arm segments, wherein the biasing member comprises an elastomer cord positioned within the groove. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 14 and 15: a wearable device as claimed, specifically wherein: the biasing member comprises a shape memory material having an original shape; and the shape memory material is configured to return to the original shape when heated. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 18-20: an electronic device as claimed, specifically wherein the biasing member comprises a first biasing member of shape memory material having a first original shape and extending contiguously along the plurality of arm segments; and further comprising a second biasing member of shape memory material having a second original shape and extending contiguously along the plurality of arm segments. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm. 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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. /WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 12, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 05, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 24, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596264
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596246
OPTICAL SYSTEM AND HEAD MOUNTED DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596263
OPTICAL MODULE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591127
Optical Data Insertion
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591132
METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR SPATIALLY FILTERING OPTICAL PULSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+4.1%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1114 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month