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 .
The Office acknowledges the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 17 August 2026, in which:
Claims 1-7, 10-14 and 16-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are amended.
Claims 8, 9 and 15 are canceled.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10-14 and 16-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Osiroff relies on a predetermined pad geometry to cover known forehead vessels and does not describe scanning a face to determine a blood vessel distribution. The applicant further argues that Strongwater only scans for user authentication rather than determining a blood vessel distribution.
The Office respectfully disagrees. These arguments are not persuasive because they highlight a critical contradiction between the claims and the specification. If the claims are interpreted narrowly to require the active mapping or visualization of internal blood vessels through a scan, the specification lacks the written description and enablement to support such a function, necessitating the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections set forth above. Conversely, when applying the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation consistent with paragraphs [0025] and [0034] of the applicant's own specification, scanning to determine a distribution simply means placing multiple sensors over known anatomical landmarks and selecting the ones with the best signal quality. Under this interpretation, the prior art combination of Strongwater, which teaches facial scanning to evaluate physiological characteristics; Osiroff, which teaches targeting the supratrochlear artery; and Hossain, which teaches using an array of sensors to evaluate signal quality, renders the claimed limitation obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claimed invention is not supported by either the original specification or any original claim in a manner that indicates the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Specifically, independent claims 1, 12, and 18 have been amended to recite that the blood vessel distribution is determined by scanning a face of the user. However, the original specification does not describe determining a blood vessel distribution by scanning a face. Instead, the specification describes the opposite relationship. Paragraph [0034] of the specification states that the front-head blood vessel distribution is used to scan the forehead and that the facial interface leverages the front-head blood vessel distribution to perform a face scan. The specification describes using a known blood vessel distribution as a baseline to perform a scan or place sensors, but it never describes the device actually generating, mapping, or determining the blood vessel distribution via a scan. Therefore, claiming that the scan determines the distribution introduces new matter not supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 1-7, 10-14 and 16-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The specification does not contain a disclosure that is clear and exact enough to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. The claims require determining a blood vessel distribution by scanning a face of the user. The specification lacks any technical disclosure regarding how a surface scan generates a map of subcutaneous blood vessels. There is no description of the necessary hardware, such as near-infrared imagers or thermal mapping devices, nor is there any description of the specific algorithms required to visualize or map internal veins from a facial scan. Paragraphs [0025] and [0034] of the specification merely describe placing multiple sensors on the forehead and selecting the sensors with the best signal quality. Describing a trial-and-error method of checking signal strength among multiple sensors does not enable a method or system for actually mapping or determining a vascular distribution via a facial scan.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain et al. (US 2021/0294104, hereinafter “Hossain”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0192511, hereinafter “Wang”), Mendez et al. (US 2024/0035892, hereinafter “Mendez”), Osiroff et al. (US 2024/0090777, hereinafter “Osiroff”), and Strongwater et al. (US 2020/0233220, hereinafter “Strongwater”).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Hossain teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a headset (Hossain: Fig. 1, head-mounted device 10);
a facial interface coupled to the headset (Hossain: Para. [0036] – [0038], Fig. 1, light seal 12R); and
a plurality of sensors integrated with the facial interface (Hossain: Para. [0043] – [0045], Fig. 3, sensors 16),
wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a pressure sensor and a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor (Hossain: Para. [0008], [0043] – [0045], [0055], capacitive/resistive sensors for gathering facial force measurements and optical sensors that measure blood flow and optical absorption which is the functional equivalent of PPG).
Hossain fails to expressly disclose regions of differing stiffness.
However, Wang discloses regions of differing stiffness (Wang: Para. [0004], facial interface cushion including a first portion and a second portion with differing stiffness, where the first stiffness is at least four times greater than the second stiffness).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Hossain, to incorporate applying different pressures to different regions of the facial interface, as taught by Wang, in order to increase comfort of the user (Wang: Para. [0074]).
Hossain and Wang fail to expressly disclose an electrooculogram (EOG) sensor.
However, Mendez discloses an electrooculogram (EOG) sensor (Mendez: Para. [0027], [0033]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Hossain and Wang, to incorporate additional sensors, as taught by Mendez, in order to provide a comfortable, immersive user experience (Mendez: Para. [0005]).
Hossain, Wang, and Mendez fail to expressly disclose wherein the PPG sensor is placed on a location on a forehead of a user based on a blood vessel distribution to increase a signal level of the PPG sensor, and wherein the blood vessel distribution is determined by scanning a face of the user.
However, Strongwater discloses scanning a face engagement region to evaluate physiological conditions and determine facial shape characteristics (Strongwater: Para. [0059], [0067]). Furthermore, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in light of paragraphs [0025] and [0034] of the applicant's specification, determining a blood vessel distribution by scanning a face is defined as placing multiple sensors over known anatomical features and selecting the sensors with the best signal quality. Osiroff discloses placing sensor units over detectable forehead vasculature to increase signal levels, specifically identifying the supratrochlear artery for pulse measurement (Osiroff: Para. [0059], [0081]). Hossain further teaches providing an array of multiple sensor elements along the facial interface to gather measurements and evaluate signal data (Hossain: Para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Hossain, Wang, and Mendez, to incorporate the facial scanning taught by Strongwater to identify facial characteristics, utilize the known blood vessel distributions as taught by Osiroff to place the sensors, and use the sensor array taught by Hossain to select the sensor with the highest signal quality, thereby fulfilling the claimed scanning and location determination steps to establish a better fit and reliable signal on the user's face.
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors further include a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a step counter, a body temperature sensor and a skin temperature sensor (Hossain: Para. [0043]).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors further include an electroencephalogram (EEG) sensor, an electrodermal activity (EDA) sensor, a skin blushing sensor (Hossain: Para. [0043], [0053], [0055], EMG, EEG and optical sensors configured to detect “skin hue” and “blushing”); and an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor (Mendez: Para. [0027], [0033]).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the regions of differing stiffness comprise a first region including a surrounding stiff region configured to support a weight of the headset (Wang: Para. [0010], [0087]).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the regions of differing stiffness further comprise a second region including a compliant region configured to enable one or more contact sensor modules to contact a face of a user while allowing normal perfusion (Hossain: Para. [0037], [0055], maintaining blood flow without forcing blood away from the skin).
With respect to Claim 10 (Currently Amended), the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Osiroff, and Strongwater teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the facial interface is configured to monitor health indicators such as at least one of a heart rate (HR), an oxygen saturation (SpO2), and temperature, and display a plurality of parameters. Hossain teaches control circuitry performing “health monitoring operations” including heart rate and blood oxygen levels (Hossain: Para. [0065], [0069]). Hossain fails to expressly disclose monitoring stress and respiration. However, Mendez discloses stress response and respiration sensors (Mendez: Para. [0027], [0033], [0061]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus to incorporate additional sensors, as taught by Mendez, in order to provide a comfortable, immersive user experience.
With respect to Claim 11, Strongwater further discloses wherein the facial interface is configured to communicate with the headset via one of a Bluetooth low energy (BLE), or a communication interface including a universal serial bus type C (USB-C) interface (Strongwater: Para. [0055] – [0058]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus to incorporate the communication interfaces taught by Strongwater in order for the HMD to form a determination according to both the physiological condition and the other condition and perform an operation according to the determination (Strongwater: Para. [0004], [0008]).
With respect to Claim 18 (Currently Amended), this method is the method of using the apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 18 is rendered obvious by the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater for the same reasons set forth above for Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 19, the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the compliant region is used to allow one or more contact sensor modules to contact a face of a user without restricting perfusion (Hossain: Para. [0055], [0065], [0068], maintaining blood flow by selectively decreasing seal thickness to reduce facial pressure), wherein the contact sensor modules include at least some of the plurality of sensors (Mendez: Para. [0008], [0030], [0033], the sensors as discrete, interchangeable and removable units).
With respect to Claim 20 (Currently Amended), Strongwater further discloses coupling the facial interface to the headset by using one of a BLE interface or a communication interface including a USB-C interface (Strongwater: Para. [0055] – [0058]). The combination further teaches determining a location for placing the PPG sensor based on a PPG signal level achieved while scanning a face to determine a blood vessel distribution, applying the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation as supported by the teachings of Strongwater, Osiroff, and Hossain set forth above in Claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain in view of Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater, as applied above to claims 1-5, 10, 11, and 18-20, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2024/0385455, hereinafter “Chang”).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Hossain, Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, and Strongwater fail to expressly disclose wherein the pressure sensor included in the facial interface is configured to measure a contact pressure and notify a user to adjust a strap of the headset to reach a user’s desired contact pressure.
However, Chang discloses wherein the pressure sensor included in the facial interface is configured to measure a contact pressure and notify a user to adjust a strap of the headset to reach a desired contact pressure (Chang: Para. [0016], [0048], [0061], [0080], force sensors that detect force between the HMD and user, and the system provides tension adjustment instructions to the user).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus to incorporate additional sensors, as taught by Chang, in order to provide a comfortable, immersive user experience (Chang: Para. [0005]).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, Strongwater, and Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the facial interface further includes an active component configured to adjust a strap of the headset to reach the desired contact pressure based on a signal from the pressure sensor, wherein the active component includes a motor (Chang: Para. [0009], Claim 7).
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain in view of Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, Strongwater, and Mulliken et al. (US 2025/0044834, hereinafter “Mulliken”).
With respect to Claim 12 (Currently Amended), Hossain teaches a system, comprising:
a headset (Hossain: Fig. 1, HMD 10);
a facial interface coupled to the headset (Hossain: Para. [0036] – [0038], Fig. 1, light seal 12R); and
a plurality of sensors coupled to the facial interface (Hossain: Para. [0006], [0051]),
wherein at least some of the plurality of sensors are placed within the facial interface (Hossain: Para. [0048], Fig. 4, sensors are placed at various locations “embedded in the middle of material” or at the surfaces of the interface to gather measurements).
Hossain fails to expressly disclose the facial interface including a stiff region and a compliant region, and the stiff region of the facial interface in contact with a forehead of a user. However, Wang discloses the facial interface including a stiff region and a compliant region (Wang: Para. [0078], [0123], [0143], claim 20), and the stiff region of the facial interface in contact with a forehead of a user (Wang, at claim 1, teaches that the “first portion” (the region with four times greater stiffness) is configured to engage the forehead). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by Hossain, to incorporate applying different pressures to different regions of the facial interface, as taught by Wang, in order to increase comfort of the user (Wang: Para. [0074]).
Hossain and Wang fail to expressly disclose an electrooculogram (EOG) sensor. However, Mendez discloses an electrooculogram (EOG) sensor (Mendez: Para. [0027], [0033]).
The combination of Hossain as modified by Wang and Mendez fails to expressly disclose the specific placement of these sensors within the modifiable stiffness regions to monitor and drive the interface’s dynamic response.
However, Mulliken teaches the specific placement of these sensors within the modifiable stiffness regions to monitor and drive the interface’s dynamic response (Mulliken: Abstract, Para. [0005], [0013], [0039]).
The combination of Hossain, Wang, Mendez, and Mulliken fails to expressly disclose wherein the PPG sensor is placed on a location on a forehead of a user based on a blood vessel distribution determined by scanning a face.
However, Strongwater discloses scanning a face engagement region to evaluate physiological conditions (Strongwater: Para. [0059], [0067]). Osiroff discloses placing sensor units over detectable forehead vasculature (Osiroff: Para. [0059], [0081]), and Hossain teaches using an array of sensors to evaluate signal data (Hossain: Para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings to determine the location based on the blood vessel distribution and scanning for the same reasons set forth above for Claim 1.
With respect to Claims 13, 14 and 16, the combination teaches the compliant region allowing contact sensor modules to contact a face without restricting perfusion, the specific list of included sensors, and configuring the optical sensors to distinguish skin from other objects. This is taught collectively by Hossain (Para. [0043], [0055]) addressing the perfusion and proximity logic, and Mendez (Para. [0008], [0030], [0033]) teaching the discrete contact sensor modules.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain in view of Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, Strongwater, Mulliken, and Wang et al. (US 2025/0044833, hereinafter “Wang2”).
With respect to Claim 17, the combination of Hossain as modified by Wang, Mendez, Osiroff, Strongwater, and Mulliken teaches the system of claim 12.
The combination fails to expressly disclose wherein the facial interface comprises a removable sensor capsule configured to be inserted into a cavity provided in front of the headset over the forehead of the user.
However, Wang2 discloses wherein the facial interface comprises a removable sensor capsule (Wang2: Fig. 3-5, Para. [0030], [0048] – [0055], removable cartridge that carries sensors and processing units in a discrete housing) configured to be inserted into a cavity provided in front of the headset over the forehead of the user (Wang2: Para. [0052], cartridge is removably inserted into a slot defined by the HMD housing, positioned above the display area which corresponds to the user’s forehead region).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus, as taught by the combination, to incorporate a removable cartridge module, as taught by Wang2, in order to allow the user to remove the cartridge from the HMD for enhanced wearer comfort over extended periods of time (Wang2: Para. [0007], [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights