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 without traverse of Species II (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Markovsky et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0341286 (hereinafter Markovsky).
Consider claim 1, Markovsky teaches a head-mountable device (Figure 10 and [0048], comprising: a display frame (Figure 10, 36b); an optical component disposed within the display frame ([0046] and [0048], Head mounted display (HMD) and Hololens); a facial interface connected to the display frame (Figure 10, 20), the facial interface comprising a lattice structure (Figures 1-3, fit system 20); and a strap connected to the display frame ([0048], head strap).
Consider claim 2, Markovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Markovsky teaches wherein the lattice structure comprises a geometry or pattern configuration of an auxetic structure, a honeycomb structure, an adjoining sphere structure, or a custom structure based on a stress-strain mapping (Figures 1-3, fit system 20).
Consider claim 3, Markovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Markovsky teaches wherein the lattice structure comprises an elastomer material ([0035], elastomer).
Consider claim 4, Markovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Markovsky teaches wherein the lattice structure comprises a first material and a second material ([0036], covering fabric or fabrics (not pictured) wrapped around the cushioning material. Additionally, a silver coating can be applied to or included in the fabric for antibacterial requirements).
Consider claim 5, Markovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Markovsky teaches an insert embedded within the lattice structure ([0036], covering fabric or fabrics (not pictured) wrapped around the cushioning material. Additionally, a silver coating can be applied to or included in the fabric for antibacterial requirements).
Consider claim 6, Markovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Markovsky teaches wherein a portion of the lattice structure comprises a first set of directional properties (Figures 1-3, different collapsible beams 22 and thus different directional properties) and a second set of directional properties different from the first set of directional properties (Figures 1-3, different collapsible beams 22 and thus different directional properties).
Consider claim 10, Markovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Markovsky teaches wherein: a first portion of the lattice structure comprises a base (Figures 1-3, the contact surfaces 24 are positioned to contact respectively a frame of the head article (considered base) and a lining facing the head of the wearer (considered customized portion)); and a second portion of the lattice structure comprises a customized portion (Figures 1-3 and [0022], the contact surfaces 24 are positioned to contact respectively a frame of the head article (considered base) and a lining facing the head of the wearer (considered customized portion)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markovsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatfield et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0233453 (hereinafter Hatfield).
Consider claim 7, Markovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Markovsky does not appear to specifically disclose a rigid bumper connected to the display frame and positioned between the display frame and the facial interface, the rigid bumper defining a fixed gap between the optical component and the facial interface.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Hatfield teaches a head-mounted display includes a facial interface (abstract) and further teaches a rigid bumper connected to the display frame (Figures 9a-c and [0089], structure 932) and positioned between the display frame and the facial interface (Figures 9a-c, 936 and 110), the rigid bumper defining a fixed gap between the optical component and the facial interface (Figure 9b, D between 110/114 and 936).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a bumper as taught by Hatfield with the benefit that the upper engagement structure 932 may reliably establish the eye relief distance D for a given user irrespective of some other conditions, such as tension in the head support 120 as suggested in [0089].
Consider claim 8, Markovsky and Hatfield teach all the limitations of claim 7. In addition, Markovsky teaches wherein: the lattice structure is a first lattice structure and further comprising a second lattice structure interchangeable with the first lattice structure (Figures 7-8 and [0043-0044], lattice A-C and repeating this pattern) and the first lattice structure and the second lattice structure (Figures 7-8 and [0043-0044]). Furthermore, Hatfield teaches facial structure correspond with the rigid bumper (Figures 9a-c, 936 and 932, see motivation to combine in claim 7).
Consider claim 9, Markovsky and Hatfield teach all the limitations of claim 7.
Markovsky does not appear to specifically disclose wherein facial interface is removably attached to the rigid bumper.
However, Hatfield teaches wherein facial interface is removably attached to the rigid bumper ([0090], when in each the stationary positions, the upper engagement structure 932 is fixedly positioned to the display unit 110. Instead of being adjustable, different sizes of the upper engagement structure 932 may be interchangeably coupleable to the facial interface 930 and/or the display unit 110, such as being part of interchangeable facial interfaces 930, as referenced above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a bumper as taught by Hatfield with the benefit that the upper engagement structure 932 may reliably establish the eye relief distance D for a given user irrespective of some other conditions, such as tension in the head support 120 as suggested in [0089].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, AMR A AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights