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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 20180348812) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses (Figs.1-3):
An apparatus comprising: a housing (See Fig.1) including an electronics cavity (See Fig.2 and [0018]: the space defined by 203 will define the "electronics cavity") containing at least one microchip ([0020]: the processor will define the microchip) and a display cavity (See Fig.3 and [0023]: the area defined by 307 will define the "display cavity" which is opposite to 203 with respect to 309) containing a display screen (311); a heat pipe (213) thermally coupled (See Fig.2) to the at least one microchip ([0020]: the processor will define the microchip) of a head-mounted display system (100) such that the heat pipe (213) is configured to cool ([0019]) the at least one microchip ([0020]: the processor will define the microchip); and a separator wall (309) separating the electronics cavity (See Fig.2 and [0018]: the space defined by 203 will define the "electronics cavity") from the display cavity (See Fig.3 and [0023]: the area defined by 307 will define the "display cavity" which is opposite to 203 with respect to 309) (Figs.1-3: 309 is a structure that acts as a dividing wall to define the electronic cavity and the display cavity, and thus separates the electronic cavity from the display cavity), wherein the separator wall (309) is positioned directly between at least a portion of the heat pipe (213) and the display screen (311) (Figs.2-3: 309 is the immediate structure that is positioned between the condensation section of 213 and 311), wherein the heat pipe (213) is at least partially within (See Fig.2) the electronics cavity.
Regarding claim 6, Miller further discloses:
Wherein the housing (See Fig.1) comprises an inlet including an opening to allow outside air to enter the housing (See Fig.1) via the display cavity (See Fig.3 and [0023]: the area defined by 307 will define the "display cavity" which is opposite to 203 with respect to 309) (Figs.1-3 and [0019]: "The fan 201 also pulls air from the rear side of the HMD 100 where the user's face is located and thereby cools the user's face by circulating the air"- since air gets pulled in from the rear side of 100, air will enter via the display cavity and since air enters the device and is moved by 201, there must be an opening that will define the "inlet" that will allow the outside air to enter).
Claims 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moghaddam (US 20230247811) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Moghaddam discloses (Figs.1-5):
An apparatus, comprising: a housing (102) including an electronics cavity (Fig.5: the space above 210 where 202 and 306 is provided will define the "electronics cavity") containing electronics (202 and 306) and a display cavity (Fig.5: everything below 304 will define the "display cavity") containing a display screen (204); a heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212) disposed in the electronics cavity (Fig.5: the space above 210 where 202 and 306 is provided will define the "electronics cavity") and configured to draw heat ([0083] and [0087]-[0088]) from the electronics (202 and 306) within the electronics cavity (Fig.5: the space above 210 where 202 and 306 is provided will define the "electronics cavity"); and a separator wall (210, 504, and 304) separating the electronics cavity (Fig.5: the space above 210 where 202 and 306 is provided will define the "electronics cavity") from the display cavity (Fig.5: everything below 304 will define the "display cavity") (Figs.4-5 and 7: 210 and 304 are the intervening structure that at least partially separates 202 and 306 from 204 and 310, and thus at least partially separating the electronics cavity from the display cavity), wherein the separator wall (210, 504, and 304) comprises a dual-wall insulating structure (Figs.3-5: since 210 and 304 form an air gap, which is an insulating structure, 210 and 304 can be considered to be a dual-wall insulating structure) defining an air gap (Figs.4-5: the space between 210 and 304 is located will define an air gap so that heat only transfer between 210 and 304 via 404), wherein the dual-wall insulating structure is positioned directly between at least a portion of the heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212) and the display screen (204) (Figs.4-5: 210 and 304 are directly between 212 and 204).
Regarding claim 16, Moghaddam discloses (Figs.1-5):
A head-mounted display system, comprising: a housing (102) including an electronics cavity (Fig.5: the space above 210 where 202 and 306 is provided will define the "electronics cavity") containing at least one microchip (202) and a display cavity (Fig.5: everything below 304 will define the "display cavity") containing at least one near-eye display screen (204); a heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212) within the electronics cavity (Fig.5: the space above 210 where 202 and 306 is provided will define the "electronics cavity"), the heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212) thermally coupled to the at least one microchip (202) and configured to draw heat from the at least one microchip (202) (Heat Sink Thermally Coupled to and Configured to Draw Heat from the at Least One Microchip: [0083] and [0087]-[0088]); a separator wall (210, 504, and 304) positioned between the electronics cavity (Fig.5: the space above 210 where 202 and 306 is provided will define the "electronics cavity") and the display cavity (Fig.5: everything below 304 will define the "display cavity") (Figs.4-5: the separator wall is what is used to define the electronics cavity and the display cavity and thus has to be provided between the electronics cavity and the display cavity), wherein the separator wall (210, 504, and 304) comprises a first wall (210) adjacent (See Figs.4-5) to the heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212), a second wall (304) adjacent (See Fig.5) to the at least one near-eye display screen (204), and an insulating gap (Figs.4-5: the space between 210 and 304 will form an air gap which will define an “insulating gap” so that heat is only transferred between 304 and 210 via 404) between the first wall (210) and the second wall (304).
Regarding claim 9, Moghaddam further discloses:
Wherein the housing (102) comprises a head-mounted display housing ([0049] and [0082]).
Regarding claim 10, Moghaddam further discloses:
Wherein the electronics (202 and 306) comprises at least one microchip (202 and [0083]).
Regarding claim 11, Moghaddam further discloses:
Wherein the dual-wall insulating structure (Figs.3-5: since 210 and 304 form an air gap, which is an insulating structure, 210 and 304 can be considered to be a dual-wall insulating structure) of the separator wall (210, 504, and 304) comprises a first polymer wall (210 and [0084]) adjacent to (Figs.3-5: 210 is adjacent to 206 and 212) the heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212) and a second polymer wall (304 and [0084]) separated from the first polymer wall (210 and [0084]) by the air gap (Figs.4-5: the space between 210 and 304 is located will define an air gap so that heat only transfer between 210 and 304 via 404).
Regarding claim 12, Moghaddam further discloses:
Wherein the heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212) comprises at least one of: a vapor chamber; a heat pipe (208); and an ionic fan.
Regarding claim 13, Moghaddam further discloses:
At least one fan ([0083]: “a system fan”), wherein the heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212) further comprises at least one set of heat dissipation fins (212) and the at least one fan ([0083]: “a system fan”) directs air across the at least one set of heat dissipation fins (212) ([0083]: air from the fan will blow across 212).
Regarding claim 14, Moghaddam further discloses:
Wherein the heat pipe (208) exhibits a curved orientation (See Fig.4).
Regarding claim 15, the Office notes that the claim is rejected in view of the rejection made to claim 12, which claim 15 is dependent on, since the limitation is directed at an optional component (i.e., the ionic fan) that is not necessarily required in claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, Moghaddam further discloses:
Wherein the at least one near-eye display screen (204) comprises a first near-eye display screen (Fig.2: the 204 on the right) positioned to display images to a user's right eye (Fig.2 and [0085]: the 204 on the right will display images to a user’s right eye) and a second near-eye display screen (Fig.2: the 204 on the left) positioned to display images to a user's left eye (Fig.2 and [0085]: the 204 on the left will display images to a user’s left eye).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20180348812) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Ku (US 20200396864).
Regarding claim 2, Miller does not disclose:
Wherein the at least one microchip comprises a system-on-a-chip.
Ku, however, teaches:
Wherein the at least one microchip comprises a system-on-a-chip ([0062]: the microchip can be a SoC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Ku to modify the device of Miller such that the at least one microchip comprises a system-on-a-chip (SoC), as claimed, in order to achieve the efficient heat dissipation capabilities disclosed by Miller ([0020]). Furthermore, by utilizing a system-on-a-chip can also further optimize the computing architecture of the device since the SoC will integrate multiple computer components within a singular die as opposed to having to provide all separate dies and thus reducing the number of components that need to be provided.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20180348812) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Chu (US 20090190303).
Regarding claim 3, Miller does not disclose:
Wherein the at least one microchip comprises a memory chip.
Chu, however, teaches (Figs.2-4):
Wherein the at least one microchip (2120 and/or 2520) comprises a memory chip (2520).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Chu such that the at least one microchip comprises a memory chip (e.g., further include a memory chip so that the at least memory chip is made up of the CPU disclosed by Miller and the memory chip taught by Chu), as claimed, in order to further optimize the computing capabilities due to the presence of the memory chip (i.e., the memory chip will allow the system to save and retain date).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20180348812) in view of Moghaddam (US 20230247811) (both references of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Miller does not teach:
Wherein the separator wall comprises a thermally insulating material.
Moghaddam, however teaches (Figs.1-5):
Wherein the separator wall (210, 304, and 504) comprises a spacer (504).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Moghaddam to modify the device of Miller such that the separator wall comprises a spacer in order to provide a structure that can inhibit or prevent warm air from re-entering as taught by Moghaddam ([0089] and [0091]).
However, the above modification still fails to teach:
Wherein the separator wall comprises a thermally insulating material.
However, modifying the material of the spacer such that it is made out of a desired material, including as claimed (i.e., making the spacer out of a thermally insulating material so that the separator wall comprises a thermally insulating material), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to further ensure that unwanted heat exchange does not occur with the exhausted air, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Miller does not disclose:
Wherein the separator wall comprises an air gap.
Moghaddam, however, teaches (Figs.1-5):
Wherein the separator wall (210, 304, and 504) comprises an air gap (See Figs.3-4 and 7: the space between 210 and 304 will define an air gap and heat will only be transferred via 404).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Moghaddam to modify the device of Miller such that the separator wall comprises an air gap (i.e., include the spacer so that an air gap can be formed), as claimed, in order to provide a structure that can inhibit or prevent warm air from re-entering as taught by Moghaddam ([0089] and [0091]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20180348812) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Allin (US 20180307282).
Regarding claim 7, Miller does not explicitly disclose:
See next page→
Wherein the housing further comprises an outlet including another opening to allow internal air to exit the housing via the electronics cavity.
Allin, however, teaches (Figs.1-4):
Wherein the housing (See Fig.1) further comprises an outlet (125) including another opening (See Figs.1 and 3) to allow internal air (See Fig.3) to exit the housing (See Fig.1) via the electronics cavity (See Figs.2A-B) (Figs.1-3, [0018], and [0024]: the ambient air gets pulled in through an opening that defines an inlet via the display cavity which will then flow through the electronics cavity, which will then flow out of the device via the opening 125 that defines the outlet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Allin to modify Miller to modify Allin such that the housing further comprises an outlet including another opening to allow internal air to exit the housing via the electronics cavity, as claimed, in order to provide a simple and efficient means of dissipating the air from the housing and allowing the at least one chip to be properly cooled (i.e., including the other opening to define an outlet will create and airflow passage with the inlet to ensure that the heated air can be expelled from the device to cool at least the at least one chip).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
See next page→
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam (US 20230247811) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of Shan (CN 206363017) (of record, cited in the IDS, including Original Document).
Regarding claim 18, Moghaddam does not disclose:
Wherein the at least one microchip is positioned centrally between the first near-eye display screen and the second near-eye display screen.
Shan, however, teaches (Figs.1-2):
Wherein the at least one microchip ([0042]: “main control chip”) is positioned centrally between the first near-eye display screen (Fig.2: the right 20) and the second near-eye display screen (Fig.2: the left 20) (Fig.2 and [0042]: 32, which is also where the at least one microchip is located, is in an area that is centered between the first and second near-eye displays 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Shan to modify the device of Moghaddam such the at least one microchip is positioned centrally between the first near-eye display screen and the second near-eye display screen, as claimed, in order to further simplify the construction of the device (i.e., by providing the at least one microchip in a central location between the first near-eye display screen and the second near-eye display screen, as claimed, a single PCB board can be implemented for both of the near-eye displays as opposed to providing a PCB for each of the near-eye display).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam (US 20230247811) (of record, cited in the IDS) in view of He (US 20240147669).
Regarding claim 19, Moghaddam further discloses:
Wherein the heat sink (206, 208, and/or 212) comprises a fan ([0083]: “a system fan”).
However, Moghaddam does not disclose:
Wherein the heat sink comprises an ionic fan.
He, however, teaches:
The use of an ionic fan ([0029]: “This heated air may be passed out of the housing of the information handling via use of active cooling systems such as a blower, fan, or ionic blower device that creates an airflow”) (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of He to modify the device of Moghaddam such that the fan is an ionic fan so that the heat sink comprises an ionic fan, as claimed, in order to provide a more quiet fan system since it is known in the art that ionic blowers typically generate less noise than that of convention blade fans.
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghaddam (US 20230247811) (of record, cited in the IDS) and He (US 20240147669) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Miller (US 20180348812) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 20, modified Moghaddam does not teach:
Wherein the ionic fan is coupled to the separator wall and extends into the electronics cavity.
Miller, however, teaches (Figs.1-2):
Wherein the fan (201) is coupled to the separator wall (309) and extends into (See Fig.2) the electronics cavity (See Fig.2 and [0018]: the space defined by 203 will define the "electronics cavity").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Miller to further modify the device of modified Moghaddam such that the ionic fan is coupled to the separator wall and extends into the electronics cavity, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling efficiency (i.e., due to the ionic fan being coupled to the separator wall and extending into the electronics cavity, the overall distance from the at least one microchip can be reduced and providing a more optimal thermal path from the at least one microchip to the ionic fan).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20250314880: teaches a cooling system for a head mounted display module.
US 20250138607: teaches a cooling system for a head mounted display module that utilizes a fan, heat pipe, and vapor chamber.
US 20240130073: teaches that an ionic fan is known in the art to generate less noise.
US 12061339: teaches a cooling system for a head mounted display module.
US 20220146838: teaches a cooling system for a head mounted display module.
US 10895897: teaches a cooling system for a head mounted display module.
US 20190107870: teaches a microchip of a head mounted display module that is placed in a central location between eye pieces of the head mounted display module.
US 20190075689: teaches a cooling system for a head mounted display module using fans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights