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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objection
3. Claims 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8 of claim 11: “… the front surface, ..." should be changed to --... the front surface; ...--;
In line 10 of claim 11: “… the first force range, ..." should be changed to --... the first force range; ...--; and
In line 13 of claim 11: “… absorb ..." should be changed to --... absorbs ...--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. `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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morris (U.S. Patent No. US 11,480,801 B1).
As to claim 11, Morris (Figs. 1-5) teaches a wearable apparatus (a head-mounted display system 100), comprising:
a head-mountable display (a rigid support frame element 414) (Fig. 4);
a facial interface (a frame body 423) having a cushion layer (a facial interface padding 422) with a front surface (a front surface) facing the head-mountable display (the rigid support frame element 414), the cushion layer (the facial interface padding 422) being rated for applied loads within a first force range (since the facial interface padding 422 is compressible so that the force is applied until the facial interface padding 422 is compressed at the maximum) (Fig. 4); and
a stop (the upper central support element an upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) connected to the head-mountable display (the rigid support frame element 414) and the front surface (the front surface of the frame body 423) (Figs. 4-5), wherein:
the stop (the upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) configured to define a space (a space) between the head-mountable display (the rigid support frame element 414) and the front surface (the front surface of the frame body 423) (Figs. 4-5),
the stop (the upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) being rated for applied loads within a second force range that is higher than the first force range (when the force exceeds the maximum force which compresses the facial interface padding 422, the exceeding force is applied to the support elements) (Figs. 4-5),
the facial interface (the frame body 423) independently absorbs applied loads within the first force range (since the frame body with the facial interface padding 422 absorbs the force applied until the facial interface padding 422 is compressed at the maximum) (Fig. 4); and
a combination of the stop and the facial interface absorb applied loads greater than the first range (when the force exceeds the maximum force which applies to the frame body 423 with the facial interface padding 422, the exceeding force is applied to both the frame body 423 and the support elements) (Fig. 4).
As to claim 12, Morris teaches
the stop (the upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) comprising an end surface connected to the front surface (the surface of the frame body 423), a full length (a fixed length) of the stop (the upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) positioned in series with the facial interface (the frame body 423) (Figs. 4-5).
As to claim 13, Morris teaches wherein:
the cushion layer (the facial interface padding 422) comprises an amount of travel (an amount of travel from the extended holding position in Fig. 2 to the contracted holding position in Fig. 3) configured to bottom out against the stop (the upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) at an end of the first force range (the maximum at which the facial interface padding is compressed) (Figs. 4-5); and
at the end of the first force range (the maximum at which the facial interface padding is compressed), the stop (the upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) is configured to provide a normal force against an applied load (when the force exceeds the maximum force which applies to the frame body 423 with the facial interface padding 422, the exceeding force is applied to both the frame body 423 and the support elements) (Figs. 4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. .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.
7. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jo (U.S. Patent No. US 11,137,612 B2) in view of Morris.
As to claim 1, Jo (Figs. 1-13) teaches a head-mountable device (a head-mounted device 10; Fig. 6), comprising:
a display frame (a frame 84) (Fig. 6);
an optical component (left and right lenses of modules 70) disposed within the display frame (the frame 84) (Figs. 2 and 6);
a facial interface (a face pad 34) (Fig. 6); and
a rigid bumper (posts 32) connected to the display frame (the frame 84) and positioned between the display frame (the frame 84) and the facial interface (the face pad 34) (Fig. 6).
Jo does not expressly teach the rigid bumper having a set length and defining a fixed gap separating the optical component and the facial interface.
Morris (Figs. 1-5) teaches
the rigid bumper (an upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) having a set length (the length of 434/534 and the length of 436A/536A and 436B/536B; Figs. 4-5) and defining a fixed gap (a fixed gap) separating the optical component (one or more optical lenses 110 in the display 102; Fig. 2; the optical lenses are disposed in the rigid support frame element 114 and 414/514) and the facial interface (the flexible facial interface frame element 420/520 and the facial interface padding 422/522) (Figs. 1-2 and 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a plurality of support elements as taught by Morris in a head-mounted device of Jo because the support elements couple the rigid support frame element with the facial interface frame element for improving structural stability.
As to claim 2, Jo teaches
wherein the facial interface (the face pad 34) comprises a compressible portion (pad is typically designed to be compressible, often made of foam, rubber, or soft fabric) (Fig. 6).
As to claim 3, Jo teaches
wherein the compressible portion (the face pad 34) is compressible until engagement with the rigid bumper (the posts 32) (the face pad 34 is compressible by a force and then the force is applied to the rigid bumper) (Fig. 4-6).
As to claim 6, Jo teaches
wherein the rigid bumper (the posts 32 in the support structure 26-1) comprises an aluminum material, a fiber-reinforced plastic material, or an engineering plastic material (polymer, e.g., thermoplastic or thermosetting plastic; col. 5, lines 27-32) (Figs. 2 and 6).
As to claim 7, Jo teaches
wherein the rigid bumper (the posts 32) is positionally fixed relative to the display frame (the frame 84) and the facial interface (the face pad 34) (Fig. 6).
As to claim 8, Jo teaches
wherein the rigid bumper (the posts 32) comprises a portion embedded (e.g., mating grooves and protrusions; col 7, line 28) within the facial interface (the face pad 34) (Fig. 6).
As to claim 9, Jo teaches
wherein the portion embedded (a portion of the post 32 which is a part of the support structure 26-1 which may be formed from metal, for example; col. 5, lines 27-32) within the facial interface (the face pad 34) is obscured (due to property of metal) from an exterior view of the facial interface (the face pad 34) (Figs. 2 and 6).
As to claim 10, Jo teaches wherein:
the facial interface (the face pad 34) comprises a front surface (a surface facing the frame 84) opposite a rear, skin-facing surface (a surface facing the face of the user) (Fig. 6); and
the rigid bumper (the posts 32) comprises an end surface attached to the front surface (the surface facing the frame 84) (Fig. 6).
As to claim 15, Jo (Figs. 1-13) teaches a wearable electronic device (a head-mounted device 10; Fig. 6), comprising:
a display (a display 14) (Fig. 1);
a facial interface (a face pad 34) (Fig. 6) having a front surface (a surface) facing the display (the display 14 in the frame 84) and a rear surface to contact a face (a surface facing the face of the user) when the wearable electronic device (the head-mounted device 10) is donned (Figs. 1-2 and 6);
a first rigid structural post (a post 32 (upper)) attached to the display (the display 14 in the frame 84) adjacent to a forehead region of the face when donned (Figs. 1-2 and 6); and
a second rigid structural post (posts 32 (lower)) attached to the display (the display 14 in the frame 84) adjacent to a maxilla region of the face when donned (Figs. 1-2 and 6),
wherein:
an enclosed portion of each of the first rigid structural post (the post 32 (upper one)) and the second rigid structural post (the post 32 (lower one)) is embedded (e.g., mating grooves and protrusions; col 7, line 28) in the facial interface (the face pad 34), and a protruding portion of each of the first rigid structural post (the post 32 (upper one)) and the second rigid structural post (the post 32 (lower one)) extends between and separating the front surface (the front surface of the face pad 34 toward the frame 84) and the display (the display 14 in the frame 84) (Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Jo does not expressly teach [wherein:] the first rigid structural post and the second rigid structural post each have set lengths that define a fixed gap between the display and the facial interface.
Morris (Figs. 2 and 4-5) teaches
the first rigid structural post (an upper central support element 434/534 and the first and second lower central support elements 436A/536A and 436B/536B) and the second rigid structural post each have set lengths (the length of 434/534 and the length of 436A/536A and 436B/536B; Figs. 4-5) that define a fixed gap (a fixed gap) between the display (the display 102) and the facial interface (the flexible facial interface frame element 420/520 and the facial interface padding 422/522) (Figs. 1-2 and 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a plurality of support elements as taught by Morris in a head-mounted device of Jo because the support elements couple the rigid support frame element with the facial interface frame element for improving structural stability.
As to claim 17, Jo teaches
wherein an end portion of each of the first rigid structural post (the face pad 34A) and the second rigid structural post (the face pad 34B and 34C) is positioned forward of the rear surface (the surface facing the face of the user) (Fig. 6).
As to claim 18, Jo teaches
wherein an end portion of each of the first rigid structural post (the face pad 34A) and the second rigid structural post (the face pad 34B and 34C) is positioned approximately flush with the rear surface (the surface facing the face of the user) (Fig. 6).
8. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jo in view of Morris.
As to claim 4, Jo and Morris teach the head-mountable device of claim 1.
Jo and Morris do not expressly teach wherein the rigid bumper comprises a force-rating in excess of 20 newtons.
However, such specific parameters in a force-rating as recited in claim 4 will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the parameter is critical. Absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference between a force applied to the face pad in Jo and the claimed force-rating, the determination of the optimum or workable range giving the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Please see MPEP §2144.05 [R2](II)(A) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”). It is noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the instant parameter or any unexpected results arising thereof. Since applicant has not established the criticality of the specific parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to use the force in Jo (Fig. 6).
As to claim 5, Jo and Morris teach the head-mountable device of claim 4.
Jo and Morris do not expressly teach wherein the force-rating exceeds 1000 newtons.
However, such specific parameters in a force-rating as recited in claim 5 will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the parameter is critical. Absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference between a force applied to the face pad in Jo and the claimed force-rating, the determination of the optimum or workable range giving the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Please see MPEP §2144.05 [R2](II)(A) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”). It is noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the instant parameter or any unexpected results arising thereof. Since applicant has not established the criticality of the specific parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to use the force in Jo (Fig. 6).
9. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jo in view of Morris as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hatfield (U.S. Pub. No. US 2020/0233453 A1).
As to claim 19, Jo and Morris teach the wearable electronic device of claim 18.
Jo and Morris do not expressly teach wherein an end portion of the first rigid structural post comprises a cover flap.
Hatfield (Figs. 1-9) teaches
wherein an end portion of the first rigid structural post (the upper engagement structures 932) comprises a cover flap (a covering 936) (Figs. 9A-9C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an outer cover as taught by Hatfield in a head-mounted device of Jo as modified by Morris because the outer cover acts as a barrier against dust and pollutants.
As to claim 20, Hatfield teaches
wherein the cover flap (the covering 936) comprises a foam flap or a textile flap (the outer cover 432 may include one or more layers of material, such a woven textile, a molded or extruded polymer, foam, or combination thereof) (Figs. 5 and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an outer cover as taught by Hatfield in a head-mounted device of Jo as modified by Morris because the outer cover acts as a barrier against dust and pollutants.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Morris in view of Jo.
As to claim 14, Morris teaches the wearable apparatus of claim 11.
Morris does not expressly teach wherein the stop is removable from the front surface.
Jo (Figs. 1-13) teaches
wherein the stop (the posts 32) is removable (e.g., mating grooves and protrusions; col 7, line 28) from the front surface (the surface of the face pad 34) (Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used removable posts as taught by Jo in a head-mounted display system of Morris because removable posts improves repairability and maintenance.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, Morris, Jo, and Hatfield, either individually or in combination, does not teach a limitation “wherein a portion of each of the first rigid structural post and the second rigid structural post is embedded in the energy dissipation layer” in combination with other limitations of the claim 16 and the base claim.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In view of amendment, the prior art references, Morris, Jo, and Hatfield, have been used for the new grounds of rejection.
Therefore, the Office maintains the rejections as recited above.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bristol (U.S. Pub. No. US 2024/0369849 A1) is cited to teach frame assemblies for a head-mounted display including a facial interface frame, a display support frame, and at least one extendible tap coupled to the facial interface frame and the display support frame.
Ellis (U.S. Pub. No. US 2021/0263323 A1) is cited to teach a head-mounted display including a frame for supporting an electronic display for viewing by an intended user donning the head-mounted display.
Inquiries
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwang-Su Yang whose telephone number is (571)270-7307. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 9:00am-6:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen, can be reached on (571)272-7772. 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).
/KWANG-SU YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623