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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 August 2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0037715) in view of Burns et al. (US 2016/0120267).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. disclose an apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a flexible strap (22) associated with the headset;
a tensioning mechanism coupled to the flexible strap and configured to adjust a size of the headset (Paragraph 29; adjusting device 30 can adjust the size of the headset); the tensioning mechanism comprising:
a rotating carrier (A2) including one or more pawls (Fig. 5A has been annotated below to show the extent of the structures considered to comprise the pawl wherein an additional pawl is also shown), wherein:
a pawl of the one or more pawls comprises a pawl head and a pawl neck (Fig. 5A has been annotated below again to show the regions of the pawl that are considered to be the neck and head), and
the pawl neck is formed from a flexible material adapted to reduce sound when the rotating carrier rotates (Paragraph 48, lines 1-3 describe wherein the material can be plastic), wherein the pawl neck includes an articulating area (narrower region of the pawl neck as shown in the annotated Fig. 5A below) that has a reduced thickness relative to the remainder of the pawl neck to facilitate a controlled bending at a specific location;
a toothed ring (A11) comprising a plurality of teeth protruding toward the rotating carrier (formed by grooves A12); and
a knob (32) including a wall (323) configured to disengage the pawl head from the teeth of the toothed ring when the knob is rotated in a first direction (Fig. 5B as shown).
PNG
media_image1.png
898
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5A as annotated to show the Pawl
PNG
media_image2.png
898
1018
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5A as annotated to show the pawl head and neck
Chen et al. fails to disclose wherein the articulating area is located in a superior surface of the pawl neck facing away from the rotating carrier.
Burns et al. teach a pawl disk (640) wherein the neck comprises an articulating area in a superior surface (Fig. 6C as annotated below).
From this teaching of Burns et al., it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to reduce the thickness from a superior side since Applicant has not disclosed that using the superior surface provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with a reduction in thickness from an inferior direction since only sufficient reduction of cross section is required to provide the necessary flex. Directionality of the reduction does not appear critical. Ex parte Clapp, USPQ 972, 973 (Bd, Pat. App. & Int. 1985).
PNG
media_image3.png
634
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 6C of Burns et al. as annotated to show a reduced thickness from a superior surface
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. further discloses the flexible material includes at least one of: a low-density polyethylene; a low stiffness plastic (Paragraph 46 describes the arms A22 as elastic and Paragraph 48 describes wherein the material is plastic such that the material is then a low stiffness plastic); a natural rubber; or a silicon rubber.
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. further discloses wherein the pawl head has a long dimension and a short dimension, wherein the short dimension is oriented tangential to a direction of rotation (inclined surface A232 define a tangentially extending short dimension in comparison to the radial dimension including structures defining A212).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. discloses the invention and appears to display wherein the pawl neck is longer than the long dimension of the pawl head (Fig. 5A as shown), but fails to provide explicit description of this relationship. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relate the dimensions as claimed since applicant has not disclosed that this relationship solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the relative dimensions as shown.
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. further discloses wherein the rotating earner includes a shoulder (Fig. 5A shows the wall 323 abutting a flat side of hole A212 corresponding to the claimed shoulder) adjacent a proximal end of the pawl.
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al. further discloses wherein the shoulder of the rotating carrier is configured such that rotating the knob in a second direction causes: the wall to push against the shoulder of the rotating carrier, the rotating carrier to rotate in the second direction, and the flexible strap to tighten (Fig. 5A as shown).
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al. further discloses wherein the knob is configured to: rotate a second direction to cause the wall to push the pawl head to disengage from the teeth of the toothed ring, and cause the pawl neck of the pawl to buckle and wedge between the rotating carrier and the toothed ring (Fig. 5B as shown).
Regarding claim 21, Chen et al. further discloses wherein the articulating area has a convex shape located on an inferior portion of the pawl neck (Fig. 5A as shown).
Regarding claim 22, Chen et al. further discloses wherein the articulating area is located proximal the pawl head (Fig. 5A as shown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to claim 1 have been addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677