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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions belong to the same embodiment disclosed in Figure 9. The arguments are found persuasive and the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
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 1, 9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0409150 A1, “Lee”) in view of Adami et al (US Publication No.: US 2018/0127904 A1, “Adami”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a head-mounted device (Figures 1-3), comprising:
A main housing unit having an optical module and a display (Figure 1, main housing comprises an optical module 112 and a display 111); and
A light seal coupled to the main housing unit (Figure 2A, light seal 223/224), wherein
The light seal comprises:
A light-blocking inner fabric layer (Figure 2A, light-blocking inner fabric layer 224; Paragraph 0060 discloses a second light shielding member 224 may be made of a soft fabric material); and
A seamless outer knit fabric layer (Figure 2A, seamless outer knit fabric layer 223; Paragraph 0091 discloses a first light shielding member 223 consisting of a fabric material).
Lee fails to disclose that the seamless outer knit fabric layer has knit stitches and tuck stitches.
However, Adami discloses a similar device where the seamless outer knit fabric layer has knit stitches and tuck stitches (Adami, Figure 5F; Paragraph 0171).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outer knit fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include knit and tuck stitches as disclosed by Adami. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Adami, Paragraph 0178).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Adami discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein the light seal comprises a foam portion and a flexible nose bridge portion (Lee, foam portion 323, flexible nose bridge portion 322).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses a head-mounted device (Figures 1-3), comprising:
A head-mounted housing (Figure 1, head-mounted housing 110);
A display and optical module mounted in the head-mounted housing (Figure 1, display 111, optical module 112), wherein the optical module has an optical axis (Paragraph 0052 discloses the optical module 112 to comprise a lens, which would have an optical axis); and
A light seal coupled to the main housing unit (Figure 2A, light seal 223/224), wherein the light seal comprises a seamless tube of knit fabric that forms an outer surface of the light seal (Figure 2A, seamless fabric layer 223).
Lee fails to disclose that the light seal includes knit stitches and tuck stitches to increase stretch along a direction that is parallel to the optical axis.
However, Adami discloses a similar device that includes knit stitches and tuck stitches to increase stretch (Adami, Figure 5F; Paragraph 0171).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outer knit fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include knit and tuck stitches as disclosed by Adami. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Adami, Paragraph 0178).
Adami also fails to disclose explicitly that the stretch is in a direction parallel to the optical axis. However, Adami discloses optimizing stitches in order to limit or increase stretch in particular direction (Adami, Paragraph 0215). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the stretch in relation to the optical axis is the result-effective variable, and when the stitching pattern is optimized to the appropriate style within the specified parameters of a given head mounted device, the recognized results of achieving a comfortable, breathable, light-shielding fabric are realized. While Adami does not directly disclose that the stretch is in a direction parallel to the optical axis, Adami does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Adami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the stretch is in a direction parallel to the optical axis for the purpose of optimizing fabric stretch, breathability, and wearability for longer periods of time for a head mounted display.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Adami discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 11, wherein the light seal comprises a light-blocking inner fabric layer that lines an interior surface of the seamless tube of knit fabric (Lee, Figure 2A, light-blocking inner fabric layer 224 lines an outer layer 223; Paragraph 0060 discloses a second light shielding member 224 may be made of a soft fabric material).
Claims 2-8, 13-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Adami in further view Pawar et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0173126 A1, “Pawar”).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee in view of Adami discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Lee fails to disclose that the seamless outer knit fabric layer has four-row-repeat-pattern.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the seamless outer knit fabric layer has four-row-repeat-pattern (Pawar, Figure 5C, tuck stitch 210, knit stitch 208; Paragraph 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include a four-row-repeat pattern as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Adami and Pawar discloses the head-mounted device fined in claim 2.
Lee fails to disclose that a first row of the four-row-repeat-pattern includes tuck stitches on the odd-numbered wales and knit stitches on the even-numbered wales; a second row and a fourth row of the four-row- repeat-pattern include all knit stitches; and a third row of the four-row-repeat-pattern includes knit stitches on the odd-numbered wales and tuck stitches on the even-numbered wales.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where a first row of the four-row-repeat-pattern includes tuck stitches on the odd-numbered wales and knit stitches on the even-numbered wales; a second row and a fourth row of the four-row- repeat-pattern include all knit stitches; and a third row of the four-row-repeat-pattern includes knit stitches on the odd-numbered wales and tuck stitches on the even-numbered wales (Pawar, Figure 5C discloses a first row 1 having tuck stitches 210 on the odd-numbered wales and knit stitches 208 on the even numbered wales, a second row 2 having all knit stitches 208, and a third row 3 having knit stitches 208 on the odd-numbered wales and tuck stitches 210 on the even-numbered wales).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include a four-row-repeat pattern as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Adami discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Lee fails to disclose that the seamless outer knit fabric layer has miss stitches.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the seamless outer knit fabric layer has miss stitches (Pawar, Paragraph 0025; Figure 5B, miss stitches 206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include miss stiches as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Adami discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Lee fails to disclose that the seamless outer knit fabric layer includes first strands with a first property and second strands with a second property.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the seamless outer knit fabric layer includes first strands with a first property and second strands with a second property (Pawar, Paragraph 0082 discloses a first yarn and a second yarn with different materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include strands with different properties as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Adami and Pawar discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 5.
Lee fails to disclose that the first property is a first color, and the second property is a second color different from the first color.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the first property is a first color, and the second property is a second color different from the first color (Figures 5A-5B and Paragraph 0082 disclose the use of different materials for the first and second strands, which would inherently result in different colors of the different yarns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include strands with different properties as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Adami and Pawar discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 6.
Lee fails to disclose that the first and second colors are visible on an outer surface of the light seal.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the first and second colors are visible on an outer surface of the light seal (Figure 5D clearly discloses two different colors of the strands which would be visible on an outer surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include strands with different properties as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Adami discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Lee fails to disclose that the tuck stitches provide stretch in a lengthwise direction of the fabric.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the tuck stitches provide stretch in a lengthwise direction of the fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0115 discloses that the fabric as a whole exhibits high stretch, where Figure 5C clear discloses a longer stretch with a tuck stitch 210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include tuck stitches as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving high stretch (Pawar, Paragraph 0115).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee in view of Adami discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 11.
Lee fails to disclose that the seamless tube of knit fabric comprises a first set of courses in which the knit stitches and the tuck stitches alternate every other wale.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the seamless tube of knit fabric comprises a first set of courses in which the knit stitches and the tuck stitches alternate every other wale (Pawar, Figure 5C discloses a first row 1 having tuck stitches 210 on the odd-numbered wales and knit stitches 208 on the even numbered wales).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include a certain pattern as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee in view of Adami and Pawar discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 13.
Lee fails to disclose that the seamless tube of knit fabric comprises a second set of courses in which the knit stitches are formed on every wale.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the seamless tube of knit fabric comprises a second set of courses in which the knit stitches are formed on every wale (Pawar, Figure 5C discloses a second row 2 having all knit stitches 208)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include a certain pattern as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 14.
Lee fails to disclose that the courses of the first set alternate with the courses of the second set.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the courses of the first set alternate with the courses of the second set (Pawar, Figure 5C discloses a first row 1 having tuck stitches 210 on the odd-numbered wales and knit stitches 208 on the even numbered wales, a second row 2 having all knit stitches 208, and a third row 3 having knit stitches 208 on the odd-numbered wales and tuck stitches 210 on the even-numbered wales).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include an alternating pattern as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee in view of Pawar discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 16, wherein the optical module has an optical axis (Lee, Figure 1, optical module 112 has a lens, which would have to have an optical axis).
Lee fails to disclose that the tuck stitches increase stretch in the outer fabric layer along a direction that is parallel to the optical axis of the optical module.
However, Adami discloses a similar device that includes knit stitches and tuck stitches to increase stretch (Adami, Figure 5F; Paragraph 0171).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the outer knit fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include knit and tuck stitches as disclosed by Adami. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Adami, Paragraph 0178).
Adami also fails to disclose explicitly that the stretch is in a direction parallel to the optical axis. However, Adami discloses optimizing stitches in order to limit or increase stretch in particular direction (Adami, Paragraph 0215). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the stretch in relation to the optical axis is the result-effective variable, and when the stitching pattern is optimized to the appropriate style within the specified parameters of a given head mounted device, the recognized results of achieving a comfortable, breathable, light-shielding fabric are realized. While Adami does not directly disclose that the stretch is in a direction parallel to the optical axis, Adami does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Adami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the stretch is in a direction parallel to the optical axis for the purpose of optimizing fabric stretch, breathability, and wearability for longer periods of time for a head mounted display.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Adami in further view Mersmann et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0116291 A1, “Mersmann”).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Adami discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 9.
Lee fails to disclose that the seamless outer knit fabric layer comprises a seamless tube of weft knit fabric.
However, Mersmann discloses a similar device where the seamless outer knit fabric layer comprises a seamless tube of weft knit fabric (Mersmann, Paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include a weft knit as disclosed by Mersmann. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving higher conformity of the fabric (Mersmann, Paragraph 0096).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pawar.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee discloses a head-mounted device (Figures 1-3), comprising:
Head-mounted support structures (Figure 1, head-mounted support structures 110);
A display configured to display images (Figure 1, display 111);
An optical module through which the images are viewable from an eye box (Figure 1, optical module 112); and
A face frame coupled the head-mounted support structures and configured to surround the eye box (Figure 2A, face frame 220), wherein
The face frame includes an outer fabric layer (Figure 2A, outer fabric layer 223).
Lee fails to disclose that the fabric layer has a four-row-repeat-pattern; a first row of the four-row-repeat-pattern includes tuck stitches on the odd-numbered wales and knit stitches on the even-numbered wales; a second row and a fourth row of the four- row-repeat-pattern include all knit stitches; and a third row of the four-row-repeat-pattern includes knit stitches on the odd-numbered wales and tuck stitches on the even-numbered wales.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the fabric layer has a four-row-repeat-pattern; a first row of the four-row-repeat-pattern includes tuck stitches on the odd-numbered wales and knit stitches on the even-numbered wales; a second row and a fourth row of the four- row-repeat-pattern include all knit stitches; and a third row of the four-row-repeat-pattern includes knit stitches on the odd-numbered wales and tuck stitches on the even-numbered wales (Pawar, Figure 5C discloses a first row 1 having tuck stitches 210 on the odd-numbered wales and knit stitches 208 on the even numbered wales, a second row 2 having all knit stitches 208, and a third row 3 having knit stitches 208 on the odd-numbered wales and tuck stitches 210 on the even-numbered wales).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include a four-row-repeat pattern as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Pawar discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 16 wherein the outer fabric layer comprises a seamless tube of knit fabric (Lee, Figure 2A, seamless tube of knit fabric 223).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee in view of Pawar discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 17 wherein the face frame comprises a light-blocking inner fabric layer that lines an interior surface of the seamless tube of knit fabric (Lee, Figure 3A, light-blocking inner fabric layer 224).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee in view of Pawar discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 16.
Lee fails to disclose that the outer fabric layer comprises first strands of a first color and second strands of a second color that are visible on an outer surface of the face frame.
However, Pawar discloses a similar device where the outer fabric layer comprises first strands of a first color and second strands of a second color that are visible on an outer surface of the face frame (Pawar, Figures 5A-5B and Paragraph 0082 disclose the use of different materials for the first and second strands, which would inherently result in different colors of the different yarns; Figure 5D clearly discloses two different colors of the strands which would be visible on an outer surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seamless fabric layer as disclosed by Lee to include strands with different properties as disclosed by Pawar. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of creating a strong and resistant fabric (Pawar, Paragraph 0082).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871