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 .
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 15
Cancelled: None
Added: None
Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 10,261,324 B2, hereinafter “Chuang”) in view of Watkins (US Patent No. 5,027,443; hereinafter “Watkins”).
As to claim 15, Chuang (Fig. 2) discloses a head-mounted device (100), comprising:
a head-mounted housing (120);
a left lens barrel (210A) surrounding a first optical axis (213A, axis of lens 213A) and having with a first opening (Fig. 3B element 343) that is perpendicular to the first optical axis (343 appears perpendicular to lens axis of eye cone; Col. 4 lines 17-23);
a right lens barrel (210A, right eye) surrounding a second optical axis and having with a second opening (343) that is perpendicular to the second optical axis (343 appears perpendicular to lens axis of eye cone; Col. 4 lines 17-23);
a left removable vision correction lens (Fig. 5B) having a first tab (510) that protrudes into the first opening (Fig. 3B element 343); and
a right removable vision correction lens (Fig. 5B) having a second tab (510) that protrudes into the second opening (Fig. 2; Col. 4 lines 17-26).
Chuang does not disclose a lens barrel having an inner surface with a first opening, and a first tab that protrudes into the first opening in the inner surface of the left lens barrel; and
a lens barrel having an inner surface with a second opening, and a second tab that protrudes into the second opening in the inner surface of the right lens barrel.
However, Watkins (Fig. 4) teaches a lens barrel (70) having an inner surface with a first opening (58), and a first tab (44) that protrudes into the first opening in the inner surface of the left lens barrel (Col. 7 lines 36-60; for left lens); and
a lens barrel (70) having an inner surface with a second opening (58), and a second tab that protrudes into the second opening in the inner surface of the right lens barrel (Col. 7 lines 36-60; for right lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simple substitute the attachment mechanism of Watkins with radial protrusion and holes for the vertical protrusion and holes of Chuang. The result of such a substitution would have merely yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Watkins as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Raffle et al. (US 2018/0095498 A1, hereinafter “Raffle”).
As to claim 16, Chuang does not disclose the head-mounted device defined in claim 15 further comprising:
a fabric cover layer with a left opening for the left lens barrel and a right opening for the right lens barrel;
a left cover layer mounting ring that is coupled to the fabric cover layer and that surrounds the left opening; and
a right cover layer mounting ring that is coupled to the fabric cover layer and that surrounds the right opening.
However, Raffle (Fig. 3B) teaches a fabric cover layer (140) with a left opening (145) for the left lens barrel (110) and a right opening for the right lens barrel (110, right lens);
a left cover layer mounting ring (145A) that is coupled to the fabric cover layer (140) and that surrounds the left opening (145); and
a right cover layer mounting ring that is coupled to the fabric cover layer and that surrounds the right opening (right side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Raffle to include a face pad in the device disclosed by Chuang/Watkins. The motivation would have been to render the use of the headset more hygienic (Raffle; Para. 0018).
As to claim 18, Chuang in view of Watkins and Raffle disclose the head-mounted device defined in claim 16. Raffle (Fig. 3B) further teaches wherein the left cover layer mounting ring (145A) and the left lens barrel (150) have first mating engagement structures (Para. 0019, recessed portion) and the right cover layer mounting ring (145a) and the right lens barrel (150) have second mating engagement structures (Para. 0019).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Watkins and Raffle as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Saccarelli (US 2021/0173231 A1, hereinafter “Saccarelli”).
As to claim 17, Chuang does not disclose the head-mounted device defined in claim 16 further comprising a first set of magnets coupled to the left lens barrel and a second set of magnets coupled to the right lens barrel, wherein the first and second sets of magnets have respective first and second magnet poles with different patterns.
However, Saccarelli (Fig. 2) teaches a first set of magnets (104, 105) coupled to the left lens barrel (106) and a second set of magnets coupled to the right lens barrel (Fig. 10), wherein the first and second sets of magnets have respective first and second magnet poles with different patterns (Para. 0046-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Saccarelli to include magnets to attach lens in the device disclosed by Chuang/Raffle. The motivation would have been to ensure the correct lens attachments (Saccarelli; Para. 0039).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang and Watkins as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2022/0035171 A1, hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
As to claim 19, Chuang does not disclose the head-mounted device defined in claim 15 further comprising: a left display and a left lens in the left lens barrel; and a right display and a right lens in the right lens barrel.
However, Yamamoto (Fig. 1A) teaches a left display and a left lens in the left lens barrel (20; Para. 0082); and
a right display and a right lens in the right lens barrel (para. 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simple substitute the display system of Yamamoto for the display system of Chuang/Watkins/Saccarelli. The result of such a substitution would have yielded predictable results of displaying images.
As to claim 20, Chaung (Fig. 3B) discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 19 further comprising: a first ring-shaped sealing structure (215) surrounding the left lens and a second ring-shaped sealing structure surrounding the right lens (Fig. 3A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, The prior art teaches a head-mounted device, comprising:
a head-mounted housing; and
optical modules coupled to the head-mounted housing, wherein the optical modules each comprise:
an optical module support structure comprising a ring-shaped member that surrounds a first opening, wherein the ring-shaped member has a second opening that faces the first opening;
a display coupled to the optical module support structure;
a lens in the first opening that is configured to provide an image from the display to an eye box; and
a magnet configured to attract a corresponding magnet in a removable vision correction lens.
However, the prior art, alone or in an obvious combination, does not disclose the above limitations wherein the removable vision correction lens has a surface that transmits the image from the display and has a tab that extends parallel to the surface and into the second opening.
With respect to independent claim 9, The prior art teaches a head-mounted device, comprising:
a head-mounted support structure; and
left and right optical modules coupled to the head-mounted support structure and having respective left and right lens barrels, wherein the left optical module has a first set of magnets configured to attract a left vision correction lens and to not attract a right vision correction lens, wherein the right optical module has a second set of magnets configured to attract the right vision correction lens and to not attract the left vision correction lens.
However, the prior art, alone or in an obvious combination, does not disclose the above limitations wherein the left and right vision correction lenses have tabs that extend radially outward into openings that pass through the respective left and right lens barrels.
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.
Sullivan (US 10,133,305 B1) discloses a magnetic coupling elements (Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Will Boddie can be reached at 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 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights