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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first aperture and the second aperture". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected for depending upon an indefinite claim.
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 by 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 portion (portion of 470A, B which lies beneath 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 on a first side (left side of fig 5b) of the central portion and 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) on a second side (right side of fig 5b) of the central portion and 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
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 portion (fig 5b) such that the first aperture is disposed on a first side (left side of 480) of the inner frame and extends 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 the second aperture is disposed on a second side (right side of 480, fig 5b) of the inner frame opposite the first side and extends 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 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]).
Claims 9-10 are 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 Osterhout (US 20160085278 A1, hereinafter Osterhout)
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 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 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.
Claim 10. Cooper in view of Kim and Osterhout teach the head-mountable display of claim 9, wherein:
the first material comprises aluminum (Kim [0072] indicates aluminum);
the second material comprises a magnesium alloy (Kim [0072] indicates magnesium); and
the third material comprises carbon fiber (Osterhout [0046] indicates carbon fiber).
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 9/5/2025 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
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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/DOUGLAS R BURTNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841