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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drinkwater et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0082859), hereinafter “Drinkwater”, in view of French et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0320165), hereinafter “French”.
Regarding claim 1, Drinkwater discloses a head-mountable device (100) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 19) comprising: a display (102) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 19); and a frame (110) to support the display (102) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 20), the frame (110) comprising a monolithic frame body (110) curved to fit a face and defining a frame opening (see Figs. 2, 7, Paragraphs 20, 24), the frame body (110) comprising: a forehead body portion (148) with a first cross-sectional profile having a first outer curvature (RF) (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24); an orbital portion (150) with a second cross-sectional profile having a second outer curvature (RC) (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24); and a bridge portion (152) with a third cross-sectional profile having a third outer curvature (RB) (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24), wherein the frame body (110) transitions in profile between the first cross-sectional profile (see Fig. 7), the second cross-sectional profile, and the third cross-sectional profile (see Fig. 7), and wherein the first outer curvature (RF), the second outer curvature (RC), and the third outer curvature (RB) are each different (Paragraph 24). Drinkwater discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify a first radius of outer curvature at a first surface facing away from the frame opening, a second radius of outer curvature at a second surface facing away from the frame opening, and a third radius of outer curvature at a third surface facing away from the frame opening, such that no portion of the frame body maintains a constant radius of curvature along a length thereof. The direction of the “cross-section” and the direction of “facing away from the frame opening” are subjective and open to interpretation.
In the same field of endeavor, French discloses a first radius of outer curvature at a first surface facing away from the frame opening, a second radius of outer curvature at a second surface facing away from the frame opening, and a third radius of outer curvature at a third surface facing away from the frame opening, such that no portion of the frame body maintains a constant radius of curvature along a length thereof (see Figs. 7A, 7B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Drinkwater with a first radius of outer curvature at a first surface facing away from the frame opening, a second radius of outer curvature at a second surface facing away from the frame opening, and a third radius of outer curvature at a third surface facing away from the frame opening, such that no portion of the frame body maintains a constant radius of curvature along a length thereof of French for the purpose of providing a head-mounted display which allows users to observe image or video signals through a wearable headset (Paragraph 2). The tabs and/or protrusions extending from the surfaces of the frame body are included in the interpretation of the frame body, in which their differing shapes and sizes are factored into the different radii of curvature.
Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Drinkwater further discloses wherein a radius of the first outer curvature, the second outer curvature, and the third outer curvature are each different (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 5, Drinkwater further discloses wherein the frame body (110) includes a lip portion (120/124/126) extending inwardly toward the frame opening (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 6, Drinkwater further discloses wherein: the orbital portion is a first orbital portion (left side of 150) (see Fig. 7); the bridge portion is a first bridge portion (left side of 152); and the frame body further comprises: a second orbital portion (right side of 150); and a second bridge portion (right side of 152), wherein each of the first orbital portion and the second orbital portion extend from a corresponding one of the first bridge portion and the second bridge portion (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Drinkwater further discloses further comprising a forehead portion (148) extending between the first orbital portion and the second orbital portion (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Drinkwater discloses a head-mountable device (100) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 19) comprising: a display (102) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 19); and a frame (110) to support the display (102) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 20), the frame (110) comprising: a frame body (110) curved to fit a face and defining a frame opening (see Figs. 2, 7, Paragraphs 20, 24), wherein the frame body (110) continuously transitions between: a first cross-sectional profile having a first curvature (RF) at a first location and defining a first cross-sectional area (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24), a second cross-sectional profile having a second curvature (RC) different from the from the first curvature at a second location spaced apart from the first location and defining a second cross-sectional area different from the first cross-sectional area (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24), and a third cross-sectional profile having a third curvature (RB) different from the first curvature and the second curvature at a third location spaced apart from the first location and the second location and defining a third cross-sectional area different from the first cross-sectional area and the second cross-sectional area (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24). Drinkwater discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the frame body is curved in each of an x-y plane, an x-z plane, and a y-z plane that are mutually perpendicular to one another such that an outer surface of the frame body defines a non-developable surface that, along a length thereof, continuously varies in radius of curvature of an outer surface of the frame body that faces away from the frame opening.
In the same field of endeavor, French discloses wherein the frame body is curved in each of an x-y plane, an x-z plane, and a y-z plane that are mutually perpendicular to one another such that an outer surface of the frame body defines a non-developable surface that, along a length thereof, continuously varies in radius of curvature of an outer surface of the frame body that faces away from the frame opening (see Figs. 7A, 7B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Drinkwater with wherein the frame body is curved in each of an x-y plane, an x-z plane, and a y-z plane that are mutually perpendicular to one another such that an outer surface of the frame body defines a non-developable surface that, along a length thereof, continuously varies in radius of curvature of an outer surface of the frame body that faces away from the frame opening of French for the purpose of providing a head-mounted display which allows users to observe image or video signals through a wearable headset (Paragraph 2). The tabs and/or protrusions extending from the surfaces of the frame body are included in the interpretation of the frame body, in which their differing shapes and sizes are factored into the different radii of curvature.
Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Drinkwater further discloses wherein an area of the first cross- sectional profile, the second cross-sectional profile, and the third cross-sectional profile are each different (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 10, Drinkwater further discloses wherein the first location of the frame body is configured to engage a forehead (via 148) (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 11, Drinkwater further discloses wherein the second location of the frame body is configured to engage an orbit of a head (via 150) (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 12, Drinkwater further discloses wherein the third location of the frame body is configured to engage a nose bridge (via 152) (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 13, Drinkwater further discloses wherein the frame body is monolithic (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Drinkwater discloses 15 a head-mountable device (100) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 19) comprising: a display (102) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 19); and a frame (110) to support the display (102) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 20), the frame comprising a frame body ( 110) curved to fit a face and defining a frame opening (see Figs. 2, 7, Paragraphs 20, 24), the frame body comprising: a first body portion (148) with a first cross-sectional profile (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24); and a second body portion (150) with a second cross-sectional profile (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24), wherein the frame body continuously transitions in profile between the first cross-sectional profile and the second cross-sectional profile (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24), wherein the frame body defines a first frame radius of curvature (RF) in a first plane, a second frame radius of curvature (RC) in a second plane perpendicular to the first plane (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24), and a third frame radius of curvature (RB) in a third plane perpendicular to both the first plane and the second plane (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24). Drinkwater discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the frame body continuously varies in radius of curvature of a cross-sectional profile extending along a length thereof forming a closed loop.
In the same field of endeavor, French discloses wherein the frame body continuously varies in radius of curvature of a cross-sectional profile extending along a length thereof forming a closed loop (see Figs. 7A, 7B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Drinkwater with wherein the frame body continuously varies in radius of curvature of a cross-sectional profile extending along a length thereof forming a closed loop of French for the purpose of providing a head-mounted display which allows users to observe image or video signals through a wearable headset (Paragraph 2).
The tabs and/or protrusions extending from the surfaces of the frame body are included in the interpretation of the frame body, in which their differing shapes and sizes are factored into the different radii of curvature.
Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and size of a component. A change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Drinkwater further discloses wherein the first cross- sectional profile defines a first cross-sectional profile curvature (RF) and the second cross-sectional profile defines a second cross-sectional profile curvature (RC) different than the first cross-sectional profile curvature (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 17, Drinkwater further discloses wherein an area of the first cross-sectional profile and the second cross-sectional profile are each different (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 18, Drinkwater further discloses wherein the first body portion (148) is configured to engage a forehead (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24), the second body portion is configured to engage an orbital portion (150) (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24), and the second body portion is configured to engage a nose bridge (152) (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 19, Drinkwater further discloses wherein the frame body (110) is monolithic (see Fig. 7, Paragraphs 20, 24).
Claims 2, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drinkwater (USPG Pub No. 2017/0082859) in view of French (USPG Pub No. 2019/0320165) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (USP No. 11,526,212), hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding claim 2, Drinkwater and French disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify further comprising: a processor configured to provide a visual output signal to the display, wherein the processor is supported by the frame; a speaker supported by the frame and configured to receive an audio output signal from the processor; a microphone supported by the frame and configured to provide an audio input signal to the processor; and a camera supported by the frame and configured to provide a visual input signal to the processor. In the same field of endeavor, Yang discloses further comprising: a processor (504) configured to provide a visual output signal to the display (416 of 136) (see Figs. 4, 5), wherein the processor (504) is supported by the frame (106) (see Fig. 3); a speaker (304 of 136) supported by the frame and configured to receive an audio output signal from the processor (see Figs. 3-5); a microphone (310/312) supported by the frame and configured to provide an audio input signal to the processor (see Figs. 3-5); and a camera (408) supported by the frame and configured to provide a visual input signal to the processor (see Figs. 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Drinkwater and French with further comprising: a processor configured to provide a visual output signal to the display, wherein the processor is supported by the frame; a speaker supported by the frame and configured to receive an audio output signal from the processor; a microphone supported by the frame and configured to provide an audio input signal to the processor; and a camera supported by the frame and configured to provide a visual input signal to the processor of Yang for the purpose of providing a wearable device allowing easier and more convenient access to information and services to a user (Col. 2, Lines 7-9).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Drinkwater and French disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the frame body comprises a metal or a metal alloy. In the same field of endeavor, Yang discloses wherein the frame body comprises a metal or a metal alloy (Col. 6, Lines 34-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Drinkwater and French with wherein the frame body comprises a metal or a metal alloy of Yang for the purpose of providing a wearable device allowing easier and more convenient access to information and services to a user (Col. 2, Lines 7-9).
Prior Art Citations
Anderson et al. (USP No. 10,786,327 – Figs. 2B, 9, 10, 12), Sullivan et al. (USP No. 10,545,349 – Fig. 12), Maric (USPG Pub No. 2021/0373592 – Fig. 7, Paragraphs 38-39), McCracken et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0341283 – Fig. 4) are each being cited herein to show a head-mountable device relevant to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. French cures the deficiencies of Drinkwater and addresses the subject matter challenged by Applicant.
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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights