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 04/11/2025 has been considered by the /Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the limitation “one of the one or more flexures…and the other flexure of the one or more flexures” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
This limitation is unclear because the respective independent claims state that there are one or more flexures, indicating that the claim can be met by just one flexure. Claims 3 and 17 now state “the other flexure” indicating there must be at least two flexures. Further, the wording of “the other” flexure implies that there is only one other flexure, limiting the scope to only two flexures. It is now unclear how many flexures are required by the claims.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes there must be a plurality of flexures, comprising at least two flexures, in both claims 3 and 17.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the limitation “an additional three flexures” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear whether the additional three flexures are part of the “more flexures” of the “one or more flexures” or whether they are in addition to the “more flexures”, making it unclear how many flexures are required by the claim.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes the additional three flexures are part of the one or more flexures, thus making it such that the “one or more flexures” requires at least four flexures.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the lens of the one or more lenses is further oriented by at least one bumper that is configured to constrain the lens” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what “is oriented by” means. The definition of the word orient is to align or position something. It is unclear whether this means the bumper is causing the lens to have a specific orientation/alignment/position, or whether the bumper is simply present.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “further comprising at least one bumper that is configured to constrain the lens of the one or more lenses”.
Claims 6-9 are dependent on claim 5 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the bumper is configured to compress when a force, perpendicular to the force, is applied to the housing” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what is meant by “perpendicular to the force” because a force cannot be perpendicular to itself. It is also unclear what lens “the bumper” is referring to, as it lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The phrase “at least one bumper” indicates there can be a plurality of bumpers, therefore it is unclear which of these bumpers in a plurality of bumpers corresponds to “the bumper”, and further if all of these bumpers are required to be configured to compress when a force is applied.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the at least one bumper is configured to compress when a force
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and therefore inherits the same issues.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the flexure is positioned at a corner of the lens” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what flexure “the flexure” is referring to, as it lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The phrase “one or more flexures” of claim 1 indicates there can be a plurality of flexures, therefore it is unclear which of these flexures in a plurality of flexures corresponds to “the flexure”. It is further unclear if only one flexure is required to be positioned at a corner of the lens, or if all the flexures of a plurality of flexures are positioned at a corner of the lens.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “a flexure of the one or more flexures is positioned at a corner of the lens”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “each end of the leaf spring is coupled to the lens, and a center portion of the leaf spring is configured to contact a portion of the housing” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear which leaf spring “the leaf spring” is referring to. It is unclear if the claim requires each leaf spring of a plurality of leaf springs to be coupled a lens, or if only one leaf spring is required to be coupled to the lens. Further, it is unclear if only one leaf spring is required to contact a portion of the housing, or If all the leaf springs are required to contact a portion of the housing.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “each end of each leaf spring is coupled to the lens, and a center portion of each leaf spring is configured to contact a portion of the housing”.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 and therefore inherits the same issues.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a bumper is coupled to the center portion of the leaf spring” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
Claim 11 states that one or more of the flexures are leaf springs, therefore there can be a plurality of leaf springs. It is unclear whether the bumper is coupled to only a single leaf spring or to all of the leaf springs.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “a bumper is coupled to the center portion of each leaf spring”.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “each of the flexures is coupled to a perimeter of the lens via a guide of a flexure being inserted into a glue pocket located within the housing” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
The language is so awkward that it renders the claim nearly incomprehensible and the examiner is unsure as to which elements are being coupled. Regarding “each of the flexures is coupled to a perimeter of the lens,” it is implied that the coupling between the flexure and the lens is being described. When “via a guide of a flexure being inserted into a glue pocket located within the housing” is taken into consideration, the claim becomes difficult to comprehend. It is unclear if “a flexure” is the same “each of the flexures” or if there is a new flexure. It is unclear if “a flexure being inserted into a glue pocket” is directed towards the coupling of a flexure with a lens or a flexure with a housing. The phrase “via a guide of” implies this is describing the coupling between a flexure and a lens, however “within the housing” raises questions.
For the purposes of examination, examiner will rely upon the configuration shown in Fig. 3 to examine the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the one or more lenses within the housing include two sets of lens assemblies, wherein each lens assembly includes the lens, and two additional lenses that sandwich the lens within the housing” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
The language is awkward, making it unclear which lenses are included in the lens assemblies and which lenses sandwich which lenses. It is especially unclear given the instances of “the lens”, given that there were originally “one or more lenses” and it is unclear which lens of the one or more lenses is being sandwiched by which lenses, and if the additional lenses are part of the “one or more lenses” or if they are new lenses.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes the limitation as met by any prior art showing the lens configuration shown in instant application Fig. 1.
Regarding independent claim 20, the limitation “at least a leaf spring that includes a mounting provision for attaching to a lens of within a housing of the augmented-reality headset, wherein: at least one of the one or more lenses is configured to present an augmented reality user interface to a wearer of the augmented-reality headset, and the flexure is configured to: (i) compress when a force is applied to the housing, thereby reducing a load received at the lens, and (ii) be coupled to the lens to orient the lens to have a predetermined orientation within the housing” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear which lens is being discussed at any point in the claim. The limitation “at least one of the one or more lenses” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear how many lenses are being claimed, and which lens is referred to by “the lens”. It is unclear if “a lens” and “at least one of the one or more lenses” refer to the same lens or a different lens.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “at least a leaf spring that includes a mounting provision for attaching to a lens of within a housing of the augmented-reality headset, wherein: the lens is configured to present an augmented reality user interface to a wearer of the augmented-reality headset, and the flexure is configured to: (i) compress when a force is applied to the housing, thereby reducing a load received at the lens, and (ii) be coupled to the lens to orient the lens to have a predetermined orientation within the housing”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabacker et al. (US 20240402513 A1), hereinafter Schabacker, in view of Zhang (CN 210401890 U), hereinafter Zhang '890, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 20170357103 A1), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding independent claim 1, Schabacker discloses an augmented-reality headset, comprising:
one or more lenses1 (320; Fig. 3A; ¶0032) within a housing of the augmented-reality headset (Figs. 1-3), wherein at least one of the one or more lenses (320) is configured to present an augmented reality user interface to a wearer of the augmented-reality headset (¶0021).
Schabacker does not disclose one or more flexures coupled to a lens of the one or more lenses, wherein each respective flexure of the one or more flexures is configured to: (i) compress when a force is applied to the housing, thereby reducing a load received at the lens, and (ii) be coupled to the lens to orient the lens to have a predetermined orientation within the housing.
However, Zhang ‘890 teaches a similar device comprising one or more lenses (1; Fig. 1; ¶0026) and one or more flexures (3; Figs. 3-4; ¶0026) coupled to a lens of the one or more lenses (1) (Figs. 3-4), wherein each respective flexure (3) is configured to: (i) compress when a force is applied to the housing (frame; ¶0030), thereby reducing a load received at the lens (1) (flexures 3 are arc-shaped stainless steel elastic sheets, therefore they will inherently compress when a force is applied and therefore reduce a load received at the lens), and (ii) be coupled to the lens (Figs. 3-4)
Zhang ‘890 does not teach each respective flexure is configured to (ii) be coupled to the lens to orient the lens to have a predetermined orientation within the housing.
However, Jiang teaches a similar device comprising one or more lenses (105, 110; Fig. 1; ¶0022), a housing (115; Fig. 1; ¶0022), and one or more flexures (125; Figs. 1-2; ¶0022), wherein each respective flexure (125) is configured to (ii) be coupled to the lens (105, 110) to orient the lens (105, 110) to have a predetermined orientation within the housing (115) (Figs. 1-2; ¶0023).
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 modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures Zhang ‘890 which compress when a force is applied as taught by Zhang ‘890 for the purpose of using the flexures to hold the lens in the frame (¶0030 of Zhang ‘890) and to incorporate the flexures being configured to orient the lens with a predetermined orientation as taught by Jiang for the purpose of fixably securing the lens into the frame (¶0022 of Jiang).
Regarding independent claim 16, Schabacker discloses a housing of an augmented-reality headset, the housing comprising:
one or more lenses (320; Fig. 3A; ¶0032) within a housing of the augmented-reality headset (Figs. 1-3), wherein at least one of the one or more lenses (320) is configured to present an augmented reality user interface to a wearer of the augmented-reality headset (¶0021).
Schabacker does not disclose one or more flexures coupled to a lens of the one or more lenses, wherein each respective flexure of the one or more flexures is configured to: (i) compress when a force is applied to the housing, thereby reducing a load received at the lens, and (ii) be coupled to the lens to orient the lens to have a predetermined orientation within the housing.
However, Zhang ‘890 teaches a similar device comprising one or more lenses (1; Fig. 1; ¶0026) and one or more flexures (3; Figs. 3-4; ¶0026) coupled to a lens of the one or more lenses (1) (Figs. 3-4), wherein each respective flexure (3) is configured to: (i) compress when a force is applied to the housing (frame; ¶0030), thereby reducing a load received at the lens (1) (flexures 3 are arc-shaped stainless steel elastic sheets, therefore they will inherently compress when a force is applied and therefore reduce a load received at the lens), and (ii) be coupled to the lens (Figs. 3-4)
Zhang ‘890 does not teach each respective flexure is configured to (ii) be coupled to the lens to orient the lens to have a predetermined orientation within the housing.
However, Jiang teaches a similar device comprising one or more lenses (105, 110; Fig. 1; ¶0022), a housing (115; Fig. 1; ¶0022), and one or more flexures (125; Figs. 1-2; ¶0022), wherein each respective flexure (125) is configured to (ii) be coupled to the lens (105, 110) to orient the lens (105, 110) to have a predetermined orientation within the housing (115) (Figs. 1-2; ¶0023).
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 modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures Zhang ‘890 which compress when a force is applied as taught by Zhang ‘890 for the purpose of using the flexures to hold the lens in the frame (¶0030 of Zhang ‘890) and to incorporate the flexures being configured to orient the lens with a predetermined orientation as taught by Jiang for the purpose of fixably securing the lens into the frame (¶0022 of Jiang).
Regarding independent claim 20, Schabacker discloses an augmented-reality headset, wherein: at least one of one or more lenses (320; Fig. 3A; ¶0032) is configured to present an augmented reality user interface to a wearer of the augmented-reality headset (¶0021).
Schabacker does not disclose a flexure of an augmented-reality headset, the flexure comprising: at least a leaf spring that includes a mounting provision for attaching to a lens of within a housing of the augmented-reality headset, wherein: at least one of the one or more lenses is configured to present an augmented reality user interface to a wearer of the augmented-reality headset, and the flexure is configured to: (i) compress when a force is applied to the housing, thereby reducing a load received at the lens, and (ii) be coupled to the lens to orient the lens to have a predetermined orientation within the housing.
However, Zhang ‘890 teaches a flexure (3; Figs. 3-4; ¶0026) of a similar device, the flexure comprising: at least a leaf spring (Figs. 3-4; ¶0030) that includes a mounting provision for attaching to a lens (1; Fig. 1; ¶0026) of within a housing (frame; ¶0030) of the device, and the flexure (3) is configured to: (i) compress when a force is applied to the housing (frame; ¶0030), thereby reducing a load received at the lens (1) (flexures 3 are arc-shaped stainless steel elastic sheets, therefore they will inherently compress when a force is applied and therefore reduce a load received at the lens), and (ii) be coupled to the lens (Figs. 3-4).
Zhang ‘890 does not teach each respective flexure is configured to (ii) be coupled to the lens to orient the lens to have a predetermined orientation within the housing.
However, Jiang teaches a similar device comprising one or more lenses (105, 110; Fig. 1; ¶0022), a housing (115; Fig. 1; ¶0022), and one or more flexures (125; Figs. 1-2; ¶0022), wherein each respective flexure (125) is configured to (ii) be coupled to the lens (105, 110) to orient the lens (105, 110) to have a predetermined orientation within the housing (115) (Figs. 1-2; ¶0023).
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 modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures Zhang ‘890 which compress when a force is applied as taught by Zhang ‘890 for the purpose of using the flexures to hold the lens in the frame (¶0030 of Zhang ‘890) and to incorporate the flexures being configured to orient the lens with a predetermined orientation as taught by Jiang for the purpose of fixably securing the lens into the frame (¶0022 of Jiang).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 1 and the housing of claim 16, as set forth above. Schabacker does not disclose one of the one or more flexures is located on a top portion2 of one of the one or more lenses.
However, Zhang ‘890 teaches one of the one or more flexures (3) is located on a top portion of one of the one or more lenses (1) (Figs. 3-4). Additionally, Jiang teaches one of the one or more flexures (125) is located on a top portion of one of the one or more lenses (105, 110) (Fig. 2).
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 modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures as taught by Zhang ‘890 and Jiang for the purpose of using the flexures to hold the lens in the frame (¶0030 of Zhang ‘890) and for the purpose of fixably securing the lens into the frame (¶0022 of Jiang).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 1 and the housing of claim 16, as set forth above. Schabacker does not disclose one of the one or more flexures is located on a first side of one of the one or more lenses, and the other flexure of the one or more flexures is located on a second side of the one or more lenses, wherein the first side is opposite of the second side.
However, Zhang ‘890 teaches one of the one or more flexures (3) is located on a first side of one of the one or more lenses (1) , and the other flexure of the one or more flexures (3) is located on a second side of the one or more lenses (1), wherein the first side is opposite of the second side (Fig. 1). Additionally, Jiang teaches one of the one or more flexures (125) is located on a first side of one of the one or more lenses (105, 110), and the other flexure of the one or more flexures (125) is located on a second side of the one or more lenses (105, 110), wherein the first side is opposite of the second side (Fig. 2).
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 modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures as taught by Zhang ‘890 and Jiang for the purpose of using the flexures to hold the lens in the frame (¶0030 of Zhang ‘890) and for the purpose of fixably securing the lens into the frame (¶0022 of Jiang).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 1 and the housing of claim 16, as set forth above. Schabacker does not disclose an additional three flexures are located at different positions around a perimeter of the lens.
However, Zhang ‘890 teaches an additional three flexures (3) are located at different positions around a perimeter of the lens (1) (Figs. 1, 3). Additionally, Jiang teaches an additional three flexures (125) are located at different positions around a perimeter of the lens (105, 110) (Fig. 2A).
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 modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures as taught by Zhang ‘890 and Jiang for the purpose of using the flexures to hold the lens in the frame (¶0030 of Zhang ‘890) and for the purpose of fixably securing the lens into the frame (¶0022 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 5, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 1, including the flexures, as set forth above. Schabacker further discloses the lens of the one or more lenses (320) is further oriented by at least one bumper (308, 310; Fig. 3A; ¶0032) that is configured to constrain the lens (320) along an axis other than an axis constrained by the one or more flexures (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 5, wherein the bumper (308, 310) is configured to compress when another force, perpendicular to the force, is applied to the housing, thereby reducing the load received at the lens (320) (308 is foam or silicon as discussed in ¶0032 and implicitly can apply an elastic force as discussed in ¶0061, therefore if an external force were to be applied, bumper 308/310 would compress and reduce a load at the lens).
Regarding claim 9, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 5, as set forth above. Schabacker further discloses one or more electrical components used to present augmented reality user interfaces to a user (¶0021). Neither Schabacker, Zhang ‘890, nor Jiang explicitly disclose the at least one bumper is further configured to hide from a user’s field of view of the one or more electrical components.
However, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 the shape of the bumper be such that the electrical components would be hidden from a user’s field of view since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination.
Regarding claim 10, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Schabacker nor Zhang ‘890 teach the flexure is positioned at a corner of the lens.
However, Jiang teaches the flexure (125) is positioned at a corner of the lens (105, 110) (Fig. 2C).
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 modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures as taught by Jiang for the purpose of fixably securing the lens into the frame (¶0022 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 11, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Schabacker nor Jiang disclose the one or more of the flexures are leaf springs, further wherein each end of the leaf spring is coupled to the lens, and a center portion of the leaf spring is configured to contact a portion of the housing.
However, Zhang ‘890 teaches the one or more of the flexures (3) are leaf springs (Figs. 3-4), further wherein each end of the leaf spring is coupled to the lens (1) (Figs. 3-4), and a center portion of the leaf spring is configured to contact a portion of the housing (frame) (Figs. 3-4; ¶0030).
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 modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures as taught by Zhang ‘890 for the purpose of using the flexures to hold the lens in the frame (¶0030 of Zhang ‘890).
Regarding claim 12, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 11, including the flexure being a leaf spring, as set forth above. Neither Schabacker nor Zhang ‘890 explicitly disclose a bumper is coupled to the center portion of the leaf spring, thereby producing a spring and damper system to reduce vibrations of the one or more lenses.
However, Jiang teaches a bumper (120; Fig. 1; ¶0025) is coupled to the center portion of the flexure (125) (Fig. 1; ¶0025), thereby producing a spring and damper system to reduce vibrations of the one or more lenses (105, 110) (¶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 have modified Schabacker to incorporate the flexures as taught by Zhang ‘890 and Jiang and the bumper as taught by Jiang for the purpose of using the flexures to hold the lens in the frame (¶0030 of Zhang ‘890), for the purpose of fixably securing the lens into the frame (¶0022 of Jiang) and for the purpose of absorbing stress such as shock or impact (¶0036 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 14, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 1, as set forth above. Schabacker further discloses the one or more lenses within the housing include two sets of lens assemblies (312, 320, 314; Figs. 1, 3A; ¶0032), wherein each lens assembly includes the lens (320), and two additional lenses (312, 314; Fig. 3A; ¶0032) that sandwich the lens (320) within the housing (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 15, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 14, as set forth above. Schabacker further discloses one of the two additional lenses (314) is clipped (¶0034) into a face-facing portion (302-2; Figs. 1, 3; ¶0031), and the other one of the two additional lenses (312) is glued3 into place (¶0032) on an environment-facing portion (302-1; Fig. 3A; ¶0032) of the augmented-reality headset (Fig. 3A; ¶0032).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabacker (US 20240402513 A1) in view of Zhang '890 (CN 210401890 U), further in view of Jiang (US 20170357103 A1), and further in view of Zhang (US 20160025990 A1), hereinafter Zhang '990.
Regarding claim 7, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 5, as set forth above. Neither Schabacker, Zhang ‘890, nor Jiang disclose the lens of the one or more lenses is sandwiched between the at least one bumper and another bumper.
However, Zhang ‘990 teaches a similar device, a virtual-reality headset comprising one or more lenses (230a, 230b; Fig. 5; ¶0055), at least one bumper (222a, 222b; Fig. 5; ¶0055) and another bumper (224a, 224b; Fig. 5; ¶0055), wherein the lens of the one or more lenses (230a, 230b) is sandwiched between the at least one bumper (222a, 222b) and another bumper (224a, 224b) (Fig. 5; ¶0055).
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 modified Schabacker, Zhang ‘890, and Jiang to incorporate the bumpers of Zhang ‘990 for the purpose of clamping the lens (¶0055 of Zhang ‘990).
Regarding claim 8, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890, further in view of Jiang, and further in view of Zhang ‘990 discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 7, as set forth above. Neither Schabacker, Zhang ‘890, nor Jiang disclose the at least one bumper is in contact with a face-facing portion of the augmented-reality headset, and the other bumper is in contact with an environment-facing portion of the augmented-reality headset.
However, Zhang ‘990 teaches the at least one bumper (222a, 222b) is in contact with a face-facing portion of the headset (Fig. 5), and the other bumper (224a, 224b) is in contact with an environment-facing portion of the headset (Fig. 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 modified Schabacker, Zhang ‘890, and Jiang to incorporate the bumpers of Zhang ‘990 for the purpose of clamping the lens (¶0055 of Zhang ‘990).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabacker (US 20240402513 A1) in view of Zhang '890 (CN 210401890 U), further in view of Jiang (US 20170357103 A1), and further in view of Carlvik et al. (US 20190171023 A1), hereinafter Carlvik.
Regarding claim 13, Schabacker in view of Zhang ‘890 and further in view of Jiang discloses the augmented-reality headset of claim 1, as set forth above. Schabacker does not disclose each of the flexures is coupled to a perimeter of the lens via a guide of a flexure being inserted into a glue pocket located within the housing.
Zhang ‘890 teaches each of the flexures (3) is coupled to a perimeter of the lens (1) (Figs. 1, 3-4). Zhang ‘890 does not teach a guide of a flexure being inserted into a glue pocket within the housing. Jiang teaches the flexure (125) being inserted into a corresponding opening within the housing (115) (¶0023). Jiang does not teach the flexure being inserted into a glue pocket.
However, Carlvik teaches a similar device wherein a lens is coupled to a housing using adhesive (the coupling can use tabs, clips, fasteners, ratchet grip, magnets, adhesive, snap fit, hook and loop, or any other similar mechanism; ¶0110).
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 modified Schabacker, Zhang ‘890, and Jiang to incorporate glue as taught by Carlvik for the purpose of coupling the lens to the housing (¶0110 of Carlvik).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park (US 20150297410 A1) discloses a lens with a bumper that is configured to prevent the lens from being deformed or dented due to an applied pressure. Calilung et al. (US 20100085533 A1) discloses lenses with a plurality of resilient, flexible tabs for retaining the lens in a frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 2nd, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Instant application appears to use “lens” and “waveguide interchangeably when describing the structures in Figs. 1-3, especially in ¶0008 and ¶0053. Therefore, both lenses and waveguides will be considered to meet the limitation of the claimed lenses.
2 The term “top” is not interpreted to mean a particular direction/orientation since no frame of reference is established.
3 This limitation is drawn to a product by process and it fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim. Citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” See MPEP § 2113. For the purposes of examination, the process of the lens being “glued” is considered to be met by any lens that is integral or permanently fixed with the environment-facing portion.
Prosecution Insights