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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment that was filed on 09/10/2024 is entered.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:Claim 8 reads " to fluidly communicate". This phrasing is not clear, please consider revising and simplifying.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US PUB 2019/0212566; herein after “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a removable securement arm (130/140) of an optical device (an electronic device100/800) (see FIG. 3, para. [0007] and [0050]), comprising: a housing (130) defining an internal volume including an open proximal cavity (as shown in FIG. 2B-4, para. [0029], [0030] and [0039]); an electronic component (150) disposed in the 5
internal volume adjacent to the open proximal cavity (i.e., the light source 150 and the optical transferring member 152 may be disposed (e.g., cavity of the housing) in the first housing 130, para. [0039], as shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4); and an electrical connector (e.g., terminal 878) disposed on the housing (para. [0081], FIG. 8).
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for explicit teaching of “an electrical connector disposed on the housing”.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a connector on the housing, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Furthermore, the particular placement of a connector in a housing was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, Lee according to claim 1 further teaches the electronic component comprises a battery (e.g., the battery 889 of FIG. 8, para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee according to claim 1 further teaches the electronic component (150) is disposed in a distal portion defined by the housing (130/140) (as shown at least in FIG. 2B-4).
Furthermore, the particular placement of a component in a distal portion of the housing was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 4, Lee according to claim 1 further teaches the electrical connector (e.g., terminal 878, FIG. 8) is disposed at a proximal end of the housing (130/140) (as shown at least in FIG. 2B-4).
Furthermore, the particular placement of a component in a proximal portion of the housing was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, Lee according to claim 1 further teaches a circuitry component (a flexible circuit board 160) connecting the electrical connector to the electronic component (para. [0048], as shown at least in FIG. 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Lee according to claim 1 further teaches a proximal end of the removable securement arm defines an opening (para. [0048], as shown at least in FIG. 3-4, also see claim 17).
Regarding claim 7, Lee according to claim 1 further teaches the housing defines an aperture (an opening) distal to the opening (i.e., the opening may be a path through which the flexible circuit board 160 passes, para. [0048], as shown at least in FIG. 3-4, also see claim 17).
Furthermore, the particular placement of an aperture distal to the opening was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterhout et al. (US PUB 2015/0309317; herein after “Osterhout”) in view of DeMaio (US PUB 2021/0181517).
Regarding claim 14, Osterhout teaches a head mountable display (a HWC 102, para. [0020], FIG. 1), comprising: a viewing frame (FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 3C illustrate three separate views 102A, 102B and 102C of a head worn computer 102, para. [0028]); a first arm portion (304/310) extending from the viewing frame, the first arm portion having a first housing (compartment 410) extending from a proximal end to a distal end (as shown at least in FIGS. 3A-4B, para. [0028]-[0029]); and a second arm portion (308) removably secured to the first arm portion (i.e. the ear horn 308 can be removed and re-attached to the temple section 304, as shown in FIGS. 4A-4B), the second arm portion comprising a second housing (308) defining a second internal volume including an open cavity (as shown at least in FIGS. 5A-5F, para. [0030]); wherein the second arm portion (308) contacts the first arm (310) portion at the proximal end and the first housing is free-floating in the open cavity (i.e., The HWC 102C view in FIG. 3C also illustrates both arms in closed positions with the ear horn 308 rotated to create the space (open cavity) for the other arm 310 to fully close, para. [0028]).
Osterhout teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of a second housing defining a second internal volume including an open cavity.
However, in a related field of endeavor DeMaio teaches FIG. 7 shows an illustrative representation in which a bottom surface 720 of the temple 145 is adapted with a cavity 705 inside which a wire 710 and connector 715 are tucked away and stored, para. [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Osterhout such that a temple is adapted with a cavity inside which a wire and connector are tucked away as taught by DeMaio such that a portion of the connector may also extend into the cavity for easy user access.
Regarding claim 15, Osterhout teaches the first housing defines a first internal volume and a first electronic component is disposed in the first internal volume (i.e., the temple section 304 may include a battery (e.g., a first electronic component) compartment 410 and other electronics, wires, sensors, processors, etc., para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Osterhout teaches a second electronic component disposed in the second internal volume (i.e., the temple section 304 may include a battery compartment 410 and other electronics, wires, sensors, processors, etc. (e.g., a second electronic component), para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 17, Osterhout teaches the second electronic component comprises a battery (i.e., the temple section 304 may include a battery compartment 410 and other electronics, wires, sensors, processors, etc., para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Osterhout teaches the first electronic component comprises a speaker (e.g., a magnetically attachable audio jack with audio signal wires associated with an audio system (a speaker) in the HWC 102, para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Osterhout teaches the second arm portion comprises a magnet (e.g., a magnetically attachable audio jack with audio signal wires associated with an audio system in the HWC 102, para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, Osterhout teaches the magnet actuates the speaker (e.g., a magnetically attachable audio jack with audio signal wires associated with an audio system (speaker) in the HWC 102, para. [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken either singularly or in a combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in independent claim 8, for example a securement arm of an optical device, where an electronic component disposed in an internal volume of a first housing and positioned to fluidly communicate with an external environment through a first aperture; and a second housing defining a second internal volume and a second aperture; and a securement mechanism; wherein the second housing is sized to receive the first housing into the second internal volume.
Claims 9-13 depend from allowable claim 8 are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moore et al. (US PUB 2020/0142203) teaches “a glasses frame comprising: a front frame having a first end piece to connect to a first temple arm and a first electrical contact physically coupled to the front frame at the first end piece. The glasses frame also comprises the first temple arm having a first end connector to connect to the first end piece.”, para. [0004].
SUGIHARA et al. (US PUB 2015/0212329) teaches “an eyeglass-type wearable device that utilizes the display device included in at least one temple-side electrical unit, and allows the user to observe an image displayed on the display section as a virtual image.”, paragraph [0091].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights