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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/28/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraide (US 2014/0139927) in view of Haba et al. (US 2019/0272802), and further in view of Ye (CN 216696865).
Regarding claim 1, Haba discloses, a head-mounted device (Figs. 1-10), comprising:
a projector (Para. 0051 and 80, 81, 82) configured to produce an image (see “GL”);
a support structure (12, 12j, 12m, 39, 39a, 39g, 39m, 61f) having an opening;
a waveguide (20) configured to receive the image (“GL”) and guide the image to an output coupler that couples the image out of the waveguide (Para. 0063-0065 and see “S11”); and
a flexure (12, 12j, 12m, 39, 39a, 39g, 39m, 61f) that couples the waveguide to the support structure (Para. 0053-0054).
Hiraide does not disclose explicitly disclose the flexure comprises a first ring and a second ring coupled to the first ring, the first ring being interposed between the waveguide and the second ring.
Haba teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the flexure comprises a first ring and a second ring coupled to the first ring, the first ring being interposed between the waveguide and the second ring (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flexure comprises a first ring and a second ring coupled to the first ring, the first ring being interposed between the waveguide and the second ring as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the head-mounted device of Hiraide since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Haba in view of Hiraide does not explicitly disclose the first ring and the second ring run along a peripheral edge of the waveguide.
Ye teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device (Fig. 3) that it would have been desirable to make the first ring (31) and the second ring (202) run along a peripheral edge of the waveguide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first ring and the second ring run along a peripheral edge of the waveguide as taught by the head-mounted device of Ye in the combination of Haba in view of Hiraide since Ye teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a head-mounted device with improved brightness.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hiraide, Haba and Ye discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to include a third ring coupled to the second ring, wherein the second ring is interposed between the first ring and the third ring (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide in view of Ye since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Regarding claim 3, Hiraide, Haba and Ye discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to include the third ring is coupled to the support structure and the first ring is coupled to the waveguide (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide in view of Ye since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Regarding claim 4, Hiraide, Haba and Ye discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to include a first ring of adhesive that attaches the first ring and the waveguide (see annotated Fig. 3 above); and a second ring of adhesive that attaches the third ring to the support structure (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide in view of Ye since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Regarding claim 9, Hiraide, Haba and Ye discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Hiraide further discloses, a frame (12, 12j, 12m, 39, 39a, 39m) that extends from the support structure.
Furthermore, Haba teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the second ring is coupled to the frame (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide in view of Ye since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Claims 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiraide (US 2014/0139927) in view of Haba et al. (US 2019/0272802) in view Ye (CN 216696865) as applied to claims 4 and 9 above, and further in view of Harder et al. (US 2021/0026139).
Hiraide, Haba and Ye remains as applied to claims 4 and 9 above.
Furthermore, Haba teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the first ring is attached to the second ring at a first point and at a second point (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Hiraide, Haba and Ye does not disclose the first ring is welded to the second ring.
Harder teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the first ring is welded to the second ring (Para. 0054, lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first ring is welded to the second ring as taught by the component for coupling a first element to a second element of Harder in the combination of Hiraide, Haba and Ye since Harder teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for coupling a first element to a second element for the purpose of providing an effective, resilient and durable securing method.
Regarding claim 6, Hiraide, Haba, Ye and Harder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device the third ring is welded to the second ring at a third point and at a fourth point (see annotated Fig. 3 above), and wherein the second ring forms a first spring between the first point and the third point (see annotated Fig. 3 above), a second spring between the third point and the second point (see annotated Fig. 3 above), a third spring between the second point and fourth point (see annotated Fig. 3 above), and a fourth spring between the fourth point and the first point (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide, Harder and Ye since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Regarding claim 7, Hiraide, Haba, Ye and Harder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Harder further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the welds at the first point, the second point, the third point, and the fourth point comprise laser welds (Para. 0054, lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations of Harder in the combination of Hiraide, Haba and Ye since Harder teaches it is known to include this feature in a component for coupling a first element to a second element for the purpose of providing an effective, resilient and durable securing method.
Regarding claim 10, Hiraide, Haba, Ye and Harder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Harder further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the second ring is welded to the frame (Para. 0054, lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations of Harder in the combination of Hiraide, Haba and Ye since Harder teaches it is known to include this feature in a component for coupling a first element to a second element for the purpose of providing an effective, resilient and durable securing method.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiraide (US 2014/0139927) in view of Haba et al. (US 2019/0272802) in view of Ye (CN 216696865) in view of Harder et al. (US 2021/0026139) as applied to claims 6 and 11 above, and further in view of McCreight, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0048001).
Hiraide, Haba, Ye and Harder remains as applied to claim 6 and 11 above.
Hiraide, Haba, Ye and Harder does not disclose a stress attenuator overmolded on a portion of the flexure.
McCreight teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device (Figs. 1-9) that it would have been desirable to include a stress attenuator (142, 186) overmolded on a portion of the flexure (154, 188).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to include a stress attenuator overmolded on a portion of the flexure as taught by the head-mounted device of McCreight in the combination of Hiraide, Haba, Ye and Harder since McCreight teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a robust and resilient head-mounted device.
Regarding claim 11, Hiraide, Haba, Ye, Harder and McCreight discloses and teaches as set forth above, and McCreight further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device (Figs. 1-9) that it would have been desirable to include a stress attenuator (142, 186) coupled to a portion of the second ring (Para. 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to include a stress attenuator overmolded on a portion of the flexure as taught by the head-mounted device of McCreight in the combination of Hiraide, Haba and Harder since McCreight teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a robust and resilient head-mounted device.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haba et al. (US 2019/0272802) in view of Harder et al. (US 2021/0026139).
Regarding claim 12, Haba discloses, a flexible component for coupling a first element to a second element (Fig. 3), the flexible component comprising:
a first ring structure (Para. 0043-0044 and see 302 of annotated Fig. 3 below);
a second ring structure (Para. 0043-0044 and see 302 of annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the first ring structure is attached to the second ring structure at a first point and at a second point (Para. 0043-0044 and see 302 of annotated Fig. 3 below); and
a third ring structure (302) attached to the second ring structure at a third point and at a fourth point (Para. 0043-0044 and see 302 of annotated Fig. 3 below), the second ring structure forming a first spring between the first point and the third point (Para. 0043-0044 and see 302 of annotated Fig. 3 below), a second spring between the third point and the second point (Para. 0043-0044 and see 302 of annotated Fig. 3 below), a third spring between the second point and fourth point (Para. 0043-0044 and see 302 of annotated Fig. 3 below), and a fourth spring between the fourth point and the first point (Para. 0043-0044 and see annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the first spring, the second spring, and the third spring extend around the second ring structure (see annotated Fig. 3 below; note, the Examiner interprets this limitation is met based on www.m-w.com defining the word “around” to mean –in the area near to--. The Examiner interprets that the first spring, the second spring, and the third spring extend in the area near to (around) the second ring structure).
Haba does not explicitly disclose the structures are attached by welding.
Harder teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a component for coupling a first element to a second element that it would have been desirable to make the structures are attached by welding (Para. 0054, lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structures are attached by welding as taught by the component for coupling a first element to a second element of Harder in the component for coupling a first element to a second element of Haba since Harder teaches it is known to include this feature in a component for coupling a first element to a second element for the purpose of providing an effective, resilient and durable securing method.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Haba in view of Harder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Harder further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a component for coupling a first element to a second element that it would have been desirable to make the welds at the first point, the second point, the third point, and the fourth point comprise laser welds (Para. 0054, lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations of Harder in the component for coupling a first element to a second element of Haba since Harder teaches it is known to include this feature in a component for coupling a first element to a second element for the purpose of providing an effective, resilient and durable securing method.
Regarding claim 14, Haba in view of Harder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further discloses, the first and second springs are separated by a first distance, and the third and fourth springs are separated by a second distance that is the same as the first distance (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 15, Haba in view of Harder discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further discloses, the first and second springs are separated by a first distance, and the third and fourth springs are separated by a second distance that is different from the first distance (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Hiraide (US 2014/0139927) in view of McCreight, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0048001).
Regarding claim 16, Haba discloses, a head-mounted device (Figs. 1-10), comprising:
a projector (Para. 0051 and 80, 81, 82) configured to produce an image (see “GL”);
a support structure (12, 12j, 12m, 39, 39a, 39g, 39m, 61f) having an opening;
a waveguide (20) configured to receive the image (“GL”) and guide the image to an output coupler that couples the image out of the waveguide (Para. 0063-0065 and see “S11”); and
a flexible component (12, 12j, 12m, 39, 39a, 39g, 39m, 61f) that couples the waveguide to the support structure (Para. 0053-0054).
Hiraide does not explicitly disclose a stress attenuator overmolded on a portion of the flexible component, wherein the stress attenuator surrounds the flexible component, and wherein the flexible component surrounds the waveguide.
McCreight teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device (Figs. 1-9) that it would have been desirable to include a stress attenuator overmolded on a portion of the flexible component (Para. 0004 and 0067-0068), wherein the stress attenuator (142, 186) surrounds the flexible component (154, 188), and wherein the flexible component surrounds the waveguide (138).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to include a stress attenuator overmolded on a portion of the flexible component, wherein the stress attenuator surrounds the flexible component, and wherein the flexible component surrounds the waveguide as taught by the head-mounted device of McCreight in the combination of Hiraide, Haba and Harder since McCreight teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a robust and resilient head-mounted device.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Hiraide (US 2014/0139927) in view of McCreight, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0048001) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Haba et al. (US 2019/0272802).
Hiraide in view of McCreight remains as applied to claim 16 above.
Furthermore, McCreight teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the stress attenuator is overmolded on a portion of the second ring (Para. 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to include a stress attenuator overmolded on a portion of the flexible component as taught by the head-mounted device of McCreight in the combination of Hiraide, Haba and Harder since McCreight teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a robust and resilient head-mounted device.
Hiraide in view of McCreight does not disclose the flexible component comprises first and second rings.
Haba teaches, from the same field endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the flexible component comprises first and second rings (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flexible component comprises first and second rings as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide in view of McCreight since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Regarding claim 18, Hiraide, McCreight and Haba discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further teaches, from the same field endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the second ring is attached to a portion of the support structure (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide in view of McCreight since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Regarding claim 19, Hiraide, McCreight and Haba discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further teaches, from the same field endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the flexible component comprises first, second, and third rings, the second ring is interposed between the first and third rings, and the first and third rings are coupled to the second ring to form springs in the second ring (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide in view of McCreight since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Regarding claim 20, Hiraide, McCreight and Haba discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Haba further teaches, from the same field endeavor that in a head-mounted device that it would have been desirable to make the springs in the second ring allow the second ring and waveguide to move rotationally (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the head-mounted device of Haba in the combination of Hiraide in view of McCreight since Haba teaches it is known to include this feature in a head-mounted device for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight head-mounted device that can be effectively positioned in front of the user’s eye with enhanced brightness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2029 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that Haba does not disclose the first spring, the second spring, and the third spring extend around the second ring structure. The Examiner points out that Haba discloses the first spring, the second spring, and the third spring extend around the second ring structure in annotated Fig. 3 above. The Examiner interprets this limitation is met based on www.m-w.com defining the word “around” to mean –in the area near to--. The Examiner interprets that the first spring, the second spring, and the third spring extend in the area near to (around) the second ring structure.
In response the applicant’s arguments that neither Hiraide nor McCreight discloses the stress attenuator surrounds the flexible component, and wherein the flexible component surrounds the waveguide. The Examiner points out that McCreight teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a head-mounted device (Figs. 1-9) that it would have been desirable to include a stress attenuator overmolded on a portion of the flexible component (Para. 0004 and 0067-0068), wherein the stress attenuator (142, 186) surrounds the flexible component (154, 188), and wherein the flexible component surrounds the waveguide (138).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dehkordi et al. (US 2026/0202675) discloses a head-mounted device that comprises a flexure that couples the waveguide to the support structure, wherein the flexure comprises a first ring and a second ring coupled to the first ring, the first ring being interposed between the waveguide and the second ring, and wherein the first ring and the second ring run along a peripheral edge of the waveguide.
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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09/28/2026
