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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous 112 rejections withdrawn.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 10261555 B1, hereinafter Cooper) in view of Kim (US 20160255748 A1, hereinafter Kim)
Claim 1. Cooper teaches a head-mountable display (fig 1), comprising:
a chassis assembly (fig 2a), including:
an outer frame (110, fig 2a) comprising a first material (inherent) and defining:
a first forward facing opening (opening of 110 which holds 140, fig 2a);
a second rearward facing opening opposite the first forward facing opening (opening which faces a user, see fig 1); and
an internal volume (fig 5b) defined between the first forward facing opening and the second rearward facing opening (comparing fig 2a, figs 4, fig 5b);
an intermediate frame (470A, B, fig 5b) comprising a central frame (portion of 470A, B which surrounds 480, fig 5b), the intermediate frame disposed in the internal volume (fig 5b) and coupled to the outer frame (figs 2a, 5b), the intermediate frame defining a first aperture extending from the first forward facing opening to the second rearward facing opening (extending between the front of the device to the rear of the device) and a second aperture (apertures on the two sides of 470A and 470B, fig 5b) extending from the first forward facing opening to the second rearward facing opening (extending between the front of the device to the rear of the device), wherein the central frame is defined between the first aperture and the second aperture (fig 5b); and
an inner frame (480, fig 5b) disposed in the internal volume between the first forward facing opening and the second rearward facing opening (comparing figs 4 with fig 5b) and coupled to the intermediate frame between the first aperture and the second aperture within the central frame (fig 5b) such that the first aperture is disposed on a first side (left side of 480) of the inner frame and the second aperture is disposed on a second side (right side of 480, fig 5b) of the inner frame opposite the first side (fig 5b), and
a display assembly (140, fig 2a) coupled to the intermediate frame.
However Cooper fails to specifically teach the intermediate frame including a second material () different than the first material and
the inner frame comprising a third material () different than the first material () and the second material ();
Kim teaches an outer frame (202, fig 1) comprising a first material ([0072] indicates aluminum) and defining an internal volume (fig 14);
an intermediate frame including a second material ([0070] indicates that 202b is a part of 202 while [0072] indicates magnesium) different than the first material
an inner frame comprising a third material ([0082] mentions a porous, elastic body) different than the first material (aluminum) and the second material (magnesium);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the materials as taught by Kim into the device of Cooper. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper in the above manner for the purpose of having a lightweight construction (Kim [0072], increased strength Kim [0072], and high heat conductivity Kim [0121]).
Claim 2. Cooper in view of Kim teaches the head-mountable display of claim 1, wherein Kim further teaches the first material comprises aluminum [0072].
Claim 3. Cooper in view of Kim teaches the head-mountable display of claim 2, wherein Kim further teaches the second material comprises a magnesium alloy [0072].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Kim (US 20160255748 A1, hereinafter Kim), further in view of Maric (US 20210333823 A1, hereinafter Maric)
Claim 4. Cooper in view of Kim teaches the head-mountable display of claim 3, but fails to specifically teach that the third material comprises carbon fiber
Maric teaches a third material comprises carbon fiber (50M of fig 14, [0075])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Maric into the device of Cooper in view of Kim. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper in view of Kim in the above manner for the purpose of making the inner frame strong, lightweight and stable so the CPU is protected during use.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Kim, further in view of Maric, still further in view of Kurtz (US 20080196875 A1, hereinafter Kurtz)
Claim 5. Cooper in view of Kim, further in view of Maric teaches the head-mountable display of claim 4, but fails to specifically teach that the inner frame is glued to the intermediate frame.
Kurtz teaches an inner frame (8, fig 2) is glued to an intermediate frame (5, fig 2, [0138] recites ‘the CPU processor 4 is contacted in the region of the thermal contact surface 6 with the base plate 5 through a bonding agent with good thermal conductivity (such as a heat conducting paste, solder, conductive glue) 7. The CPU processor 4 is mounted to a CPU support plate 8’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Kurtz into the device of Cooper in view of Kim, further in view of Maric. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper in view of Kim, further in view of Maric in the above manner for the purpose of providing good thermal conductivity (Kurtz [0138]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 allowed.
With respect to claims 9-10, the allowability resides in the overall structure of the device as recited in independent claim 9 and at least in part because of claimed limitations:
an intermediate frame coupled to the outer frame in the internal volumeand defining a first aperture and a second aperture, and
wherein the first aperture and the second aperture extend through the intermediate frame and the outer frame; and
an inner frame coupled to the intermediate frame in the internal volume between the first opening and the second opening,
a fan coupled to the chassis, wherein an axis of rotation the fan aligns with a central axis of the first aperture; and a display coupled to the chassis
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of claim 9 are believed to render said claim 9 and all claims dependent therefrom patentable over the art of record.
3. None of the cited references teach nor suggest the above noted limitations of claim 9 in combination with the remaining limitations.
Claim 9. Cooper teaches a head-mountable display (fig 1), comprising:
a chassis (fig 2a), including:
an outer frame (110, fig 2a) extending between a first opening (opening of 110 which holds 140, fig 2a) and a second opening (opening which faces a user, see fig 1) of the outer frame and defining an internal volume (fig 5b) extending between the first and second opening (comparing fig 2a, figs 4, fig 5b), the outer frame comprising a first material (inherent);
an intermediate frame (470A, B, fig 5b) coupled to the outer frame in the internal volume (comparing figs 4 with fig 5b) and including ; and
an inner frame (480, fig 5b) coupled to the intermediate frame in the internal volume (fig 5b) between the first opening and the second opening (comparing figs 4 and fig 5b), wherein the first aperture and the second aperture extend through the intermediate frame and the outer frame (since fig 4b shows that 440 extends through the part of 110A of 110 that matches the outer frame) ;
a fan (410A,B, fig 5b) coupled to the chassis, wherein the fan aligns with the first aperture (fig 5b); and
a display (140) coupled to the chassis (fig 2a).
However Cooper fails to specifically teach the intermediate frame including a second material () stronger than the first material and
the inner frame comprising a third material () stiifer than the first material () and the second material ();
Kim (US 20160255748 A1) teaches an outer frame (202, fig 1) comprising a first material ([0072] indicates aluminum) and defining an internal volume (fig 14);
an intermediate frame including a second material ([0070] indicates that 202b is a part of 202 while [0072] indicates magnesium) stronger than the first material;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the materials as taught by Kim into the device of Cooper. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper in the above manner for the purpose of having a lightweight construction (Kim [0072], increased strength Kim [0072], and high heat conductivity Kim [0121]).
However Cooper and Kim still fail to teach the inner frame comprising a third material () stiifer than the first material () and the second material ();
Osterhout (US 20160085278 A1) teaches a third material is stiffer than the first material and the second material ([0046] recites ‘The stiff ear horn 904 may be made of aluminum, aluminum tubing, carbon fiber, or other material that is relatively stiff. The stiffness should be of a level that provides for lateral inflexibility’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the stiff material as taught by Osterhout into the device of Cooper and Kim. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Cooper and Kim in the above manner for the purpose of making the inner frame strong, lightweight and stable so the CPU is protected during use.
However the combination of references still fails to teach:
an intermediate frame coupled to the outer frame in the internal volumeand defining a first aperture and a second aperture, and
wherein the first aperture and the second aperture extend through the intermediate frame and the outer frame; and
an inner frame coupled to the intermediate frame in the internal volume between the first opening and the second opening,
a fan coupled to the chassis, wherein an axis of rotation the fan aligns with a central axis of the first aperture; and a display coupled to the chassis
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular elements, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above 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 their 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that Cooper and Kim fail to teach the newly amended limitations, however Cooper does teach these limitations as shown in the rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DOUGLAS R BURTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0966. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Allen Parker can be reached on 303-297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS R BURTNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
