DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 9 March 2026. Claims 1, and 3 - 20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims ,1 6, 9, 11 and 16 - 19, as well as the cancellation of claim 2.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin.
Regarding claim 1, Laskin teaches a system for medical patient distraction (“an immersion system 300” [0035]; [0005], abstract) comprising:
an immersive video headset (“a surround 302, a display 304” [0035], Figure 3) providing a cinematic personal theatre (“having either an electronic display or a station for receiving an electronic device with an electronic display” [0005], Figure 3) for a medical patient (“user” [0005], abstract),
the immersive video headset (302 and 304) having a plurality of pads (“padding 114 or cushioning, such as a foam padding”, [0017] Figure 1) that are used on parts of the immersive video headset that touch or contact with the medical patient (Figure 1); and
a nitrous hood ([0036], Figure 3) having a nitrous nose piece (“nose piece 306” [0036] Figure 3) to deliver nitrous oxide to the medical patient (“the nose piece 306 allowing for the delivery of nitrous oxide” [0036]),
wherein the immersive video headset (302 and 304) is compatible with simultaneous use of the nitrous hood ([0036], Figure 3) (“such that the user or the provider may selectively engage the nose piece without interrupting the virtual experience” [0037]).
Laskin does not explicitly teach the pads are disposable.
However, Laskin discloses “one or more portions of the immersion system 100 may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable.” ([0022]) and “In some embodiments, disposable components may allow users to easily have a sanitized or sterile system. For example, the surround 102, or portions thereof may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable in some embodiments” ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the pads are disposable, as taught by Laskin, for the benefit of providing sanitary conditions between usage (Laskin: [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Laskin teaches all limitations of claim 1. Laskin teaches the nitrous nose piece is disposable (“the nose piece 306 may be disposable”, [0035])
Laskin does not teach the nose piece is separate from other components of the system.
However, Laskin discloses “the nose piece 306 may be connected to the surround 302 and/or display 304 with a hinge, magnet, or other easily manipulable feature allowing the nose piece to be adjusted, removed, pivoted, or otherwise manipulated” ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the nose piece is separate from other components of the system, as taught by Laskin, for the benefit of engaging with the nose piece without interrupting experience or use of the device (Laskin: [0037]).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin in view of Brace (US 20190069065 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Laskin teaches all limitations of claim 1. Laskin teaches the immersive video headset (“a surround 302, a display 304” [0035], Figure 3) having a plurality of parts (“padding 114 or cushioning, such as a foam padding”, [0017] Figure 1) that touch or contact with the medical patient (see Laskin’s annotated Figure 1 below),
wherein the plurality of parts can be detached for sterilization (“In some embodiments, disposable components may allow users to easily have a sanitized or sterile system.” [0022]).
Laskin does not teach snap-on parts.
However, Brace discloses “headsets, and more particularly to ear pads configured to accommodate eyewear, headwear, or other articles worn or carried by a user” ([0002]) and teaches snap-on parts (“snap” [0034] [0039] Figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin to incorporate snap-on parts, as taught by Brace, for the benefit of providing comfort and ease of attachment (Brace: [0003]).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Laskin teaches a system for medical patient distraction (“an immersion system 300” [0035]; [0005], abstract) comprising:
an immersive video headset (“a surround 302, a display 304” [0035], Figure 3) providing a cinematic personal theatre (“having either an electronic display or a station for receiving an electronic device with an electronic display” [0005], Figure 3) for a medical patient (“user” [0005], abstract),
a nitrous hood ([0036], Figure 3) having a nitrous nose piece (“nose piece 306” [0036] Figure 3) to deliver nitrous oxide to the medical patient (“the nose piece 306 allowing for the delivery of nitrous oxide” [0036])
wherein the immersive video headset (302 and 304) is compatible with simultaneous use of the nitrous hood ([0036], Figure 3) (“such that the user or the provider may selectively engage the nose piece without interrupting the virtual experience” [0037]).
Laskin does not teach noise canceling headphone portions with snap-on disposable pads; and wherein the noise canceling headphone portions are disposed on each side of the nose piece.
However, Laskin discloses “one or more portions of the immersion system 100 may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable.” ([0022]) and “In some embodiments, disposable components may allow users to easily have a sanitized or sterile system. For example, the surround 102, or portions thereof may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable in some embodiments” ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the pads are disposable, as taught by Laskin, for the benefit of providing sanitary conditions between usage (Laskin: [0022]).
Laskin does not teach noise canceling headphone portions with snap-on pads; and wherein the noise canceling headphone portions are disposed on each side of the nose piece.
However, Brace discloses “headsets, and more particularly to ear pads configured to accommodate eyewear, headwear, or other articles worn or carried by a user” ([0002]) and teaches noise canceling headphone portions (“headset 100 can be of any type of headset including, but not limited to, audio headphones, sound amplifying headset, noise compression ear muffs, ear warmers, noise cancellation headset” [0030] Figures 1 and 5) with snap-on (“snap” [0034] [0039] Figures 1 and 5) pads (“pads 106” [0031] – [0040] [0049] Figures 1 and 5); and
wherein the noise canceling headphone portions (100) are disposed on each side of the nose piece. Examiner interprets upon adding the headphone of Brace, the headphone would be disposed on each side of the nose piece of Laskin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that noise canceling headphone portions with snap-on pads; and wherein the noise canceling headphone portions are disposed on each side of the nose piece, as taught by Brace, for the benefit of providing comfort and ease of attachment (Brace: [0003]).
The modified invention of Laskin and Brace does not teach the nose piece is separate from other components of the system.
However, Laskin discloses “the nose piece 306 may be connected to the surround 302 and/or display 304 with a hinge, magnet, or other easily manipulable feature allowing the nose piece to be adjusted, removed, pivoted, or otherwise manipulated” ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin and Brace such that the nose piece is separate from other components of the system, as taught by Laskin, for the benefit of engaging with the nose piece without interrupting experience or use of the device (Laskin: [0037]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin in view of Berthon-Jones et al (US 20060118119 A1, hereinafter “Berthon-Jones”).
Regarding claim 4, Laskin teaches all limitations of claim 1. Laskin does not teach the immersive video headset is formed of durable, medical grade material to withstand use of anti-viral and/or anti-bacterial wipes.
However, Berthon-Jones discloses a “headgear for use with such a respiratory mask” ([0003]) and teaches a headset (“headgear 600”) is formed of durable, medical grade material (“the headgear 600 include PVC, leather, polypropylene” [0074]) to withstand use of anti-viral and/or anti-bacterial wipes. The limitation “to withstand use of anti-viral and/or anti-bacterial wipes” is intended use. Since Berthon-Jones teaches the device include “polypropylene, and polyurethane”, ([0074]), the device is capable of performing the intended use as claimed. Examiner interprets polypropylene as a medical grade material in which withstand use of anti-viral and/or anti-bacterial wipes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the immersive video headset is formed of durable, medical grade material to withstand use of anti-viral and/or anti-bacterial wipes, as taught by Berthon-Jones, for the benefit of providing a safe, “secure and comfortable fit of the [headset]” onto the patient (Berthon-Jones: [0074]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin in view of Lim (US 20220390742 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Laskin teaches all limitations of claim 1. Laskin teaches the immersive video headset but does not teach further comprising: anti-fogging lenses.
However, Lim discloses an “anti-fog device” (abstract, [0030], Figure 1) and teaches anti-fogging lenses ([0030] – [0034], Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin to further comprising: anti-fogging lenses, as taught by Lim, for the benefit of preventing the obstruction of “a user's visual field and [the increased] risk of record deterioration or a safety accident” (Lim: [0008]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin in view of Carollo et al (US 20160116748 A1, hereinafter “Carollo”).
Regarding claim 6, Laskin teaches all limitations of claim 1. Laskin does not teach the immersive video headset allows for adjustment of interpupillary distance and focusing for the medical patient having glasses or less than 20/20 visual acuity.
However, Carollo discloses an “immersive headset device” (abstract) and teaches an immersive video headset (“headset 100”, [0037]) allows for adjustment of interpupillary distance (“an interpupillary distance (IPD) adjust mechanism 302”, [0037]) and focusing for a medical patient having glasses or less than 20/20 visual acuity (“independent diopter adjustment 304 can allow users to focus the displays to the user's eyesight, such that the headset 100 can be used without eyeglasses”, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the immersive video headset allows for adjustment of interpupillary distance and focusing for the medical patient having glasses or less than 20/20 visual acuity, as taught by Carollo, for the benefit of accommodating various users of differing eye profiles (Carollo: [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Laskin teaches all limitations of claim 1. Laskin does not teach the immersive video headset is wireless.
However, Carollo discloses an “immersive headset device” (abstract) and teaches the immersive video headset is wireless (“the headset 100 to operate wirelessly by receiving signal information (e.g., video, audio, etc.) over a radio frequency or other wireless link”, [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the immersive video headset is wireless, as taught by Carollo, for the benefit of being embedded into military or civilian clothing without the hassle of cords (Carollo: [0040]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin in view of Hodges et al (US 5807114 A, hereinafter “Hodges”).
Regarding claim 7, Laskin teaches all limitations of claim 1. Laskin teaches the immersive video headset but does not teach screen mirroring so that medical personnel can view what the medical patient is watching and make adjustments.
However, Hodges discloses a “virtual reality system” including a headset (abstract) and teaches screen mirroring so that medical personnel can view what the medical patient is watching and make adjustments (“A separate video screen may be provided for the therapist to monitor, so that the therapist can better control the emulated environment.”, column 3 lines 12 - 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin to incorporate screen mirroring so that medical personnel can view what the medical patient is watching and make adjustments, as taught by Hodges, for the benefit of enhances the results of the immersive environment (column 3 lines 37 - 38).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin in view of Baker (US 3889671 A).
Regarding claim 10, Laskin teaches all limitations of claim 1. Laskin teaches the nitrous nose piece but does not teach the nose piece sterilized between medical patients.
However, Baker discloses an “improved nasal adapter” (abstract) and teaches a nose piece (“nasal adapter”, column 2 lines 44 - 47) sterilized between medical patients (“The nasal adapter of the invention is constructed of a plastic material, and preferably a light transluscent plastic material, such that it may be sterilized and reused a number of times” column 2 lines 44 – 47; “the adapter can be sterilized and used over and over again” column 3 lines 29 - 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the nose piece sterilized between medical patients, as taught by Baker, for the benefit of providing an inexpensive option (Baker: column 2 lines 49 - 54).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin and Brace, as applied in claim 11, in view of Esmonde (US 10617566 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Laskin and Brace teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Laskin and Brace teaches the snap-on (Brace: “snap” [0034] [0039] Figures 1 and 5) disposable (Laskin: “one or more portions of the immersion system 100 may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable.” [0022]) pads (Brace: “pads 106” [0031] – [0040] [0049] Figures 1 and 5) comprising:
a removable head pad (Brace: “ear pads 106” [0031] – [0040] [0049] Figures 1 and 5; Examiner interprets the ear pads contacts the head and thus read on limitation.).
The modified invention of Laskin and Brace does not teach removable eye pads.
However, Esmonde discloses “a modular goggle assembly” (abstract) and teaches removable (“a mechanical snap-in” column 4 lines 19 - 21 Figure 2) eye pads (“cushion 160” column 4 lines 19 - 21 Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin and Brace to incorporate removable eye pads, as taught by Esmonde, for the benefit of providing a “light-proof connection” (Esmonde: column 4 lines 19 - 21).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin and Brace, as applied in claim 11, in view of Passmore et al (US 9454010 B1, hereinafter “Passmore”).
Regarding claim 13, Laskin and Brace teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Laskin and Brace teaches the immersive video headset (Laskin: “a surround 302, a display 304” [0035], Figure 3) further comprising:
a virtual reality (VR) goggle (Laskin: “eye goggles” [0038], [0040], Figure 3) positioned above the nitrous nose piece (Laskin: [0036], Figure 3);
The modified invention of Laskin and Brace does not teach arms that are connected to and operational with the headphone portions and the VR goggle.
However, Passmore discloses a “display system for a head mounted device” (abstract) and teaches arms (see Passmore’s Figure 3) that are connected to and operational with headphone portions (Figure 3, column 5 lines 1 - 12) and a VR goggle (“virtual reality goggles”, column 1 lines 60 - 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin and Brace to incorporate arms that are connected to and operational with the noise canceling headphone portions and the VR goggle, as taught by Passmore, for the benefit of providing a compact immersive display system (Passmore: column 1 line 54).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin and Brace, as applied in claim 11, in view of Kuenster et al (US 6157291 A, hereinafter “Kuenster”).
Regarding claim 14, Laskin and Brace teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Laskin and Brace teaches the nitrous nose piece (Laskin: “such that the user or the provider may selectively engage the nose piece without interrupting the virtual experience” [0037]).
The modified invention of Laskin and Brace does not teach the nose piece is adjustable.
However, Kuenster discloses a “head mounted display system” (abstract) and teaches a nose piece is adjustable (“a nose piece that is adjustably” abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin and Brace such that the nose piece is adjustable, as taught by Kuenster, for the benefit of allowing various configurations according to users’ nose profile (Kuenster: abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin and Brace, as applied in claim 11, in view of Lim.
Regarding claim 15, Laskin and Brace teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Laskin and Brace teaches the immersive video headset (Laskin: “a surround 302, a display 304” [0035], Figure 3) but does not teach anti-fogging lenses.
However, Lim discloses an “anti-fog device” (abstract, [0030], Figure 1) and teaches anti-fogging lenses ([0030] – [0034], Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin and Brace to incorporate anti-fogging lenses, as taught by Lim, for the benefit of preventing the obstruction of “a user's visual field and [the increased] risk of record deterioration or a safety accident” (Lim: [0008]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin, Brace and Lim, as applied in claim 15, in view of Lyons (US 20150235426 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Laskin, Brace and Lim teach all limitations of claim 15. The modified invention of Laskin, Brace and Lim teaches the anti-fogging lenses (Lim: [0030] – [0034], Figure 1) are adjustable ([0030], [0039]) to sit on a face of the medical patient ([0030], [0039], Figure 1; Examiner interprets the alteration of a “form of a band for wearing the swimming goggles or the goggles” reads on “adjustable to sit on a face of the medical patient”.).
The modified invention of Laskin, Brace and Lim does not teach the lenses are rotatable to focus.
However, Lyons discloses a “head mounted display system” (abstract) and teaches the lenses are rotatable to focus (“lenses slightly magnify the field of view and their focus may be adjusted by rotating the lenses” [0159]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin, Brace and Lim such that the lenses are rotatable to focus, as taught by Lyons, for the benefit of providing greater visibility during usage (Lyons: [0159]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin and Brace, as applied in claim 11, in view of Carollo.
Regarding claim 17, Laskin and Brace teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Laskin and Brace does not teach the immersive video headset allows for adjustment of interpupillary distance and focusing for the medical patient having glasses or less than 20/20 visual acuity.
However, Carollo discloses an “immersive headset device” (abstract) and teaches an immersive video headset (“headset 100”, [0037]) allows for adjustment of interpupillary distance (“an interpupillary distance (IPD) adjust mechanism 302”, [0037]) and focusing for a medical patient having glasses or less than 20/20 visual acuity (“independent diopter adjustment 304 can allow users to focus the displays to the user's eyesight, such that the headset 100 can be used without eyeglasses”, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin and Brace such that the immersive video headset allows for adjustment of interpupillary distance and focusing for the medical patient having glasses or less than 20/20 visual acuity, as taught by Carollo, for the benefit of accommodating various users of differing eye profiles (Carollo: [0037]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin in view of Serota (US 20130237146 A1) in view further of Esmonde.
Regarding claim 18, Laskin teaches a system for medical patient distraction (“an immersion system 300” [0035]; [0005], abstract) comprising:
a nitrous hood ([0036], Figure 3) having a nitrous nose piece (“nose piece 306” [0036] Figure 3) to deliver nitrous oxide to the medical patient (“the nose piece 306 allowing for the delivery of nitrous oxide” [0036]); and
an immersive video headset (“a surround 302, a display 304” [0035], Figure 3) providing a cinematic personal theatre (“having either an electronic display or a station for receiving an electronic device with an electronic display” [0005], Figure 3) for a medical patient (“user” [0005], abstract),
a virtual reality (VR) goggle (Laskin: “eye goggles” [0038], [0040], Figure 3) positioned above the nitrous nose piece ([0036], Figure 3),
wherein the immersive video headset (302 and 304) is compatible with simultaneous use of the nitrous hood ([0036], Figure 3) (“such that the user or the provider may selectively engage the nose piece without interrupting the virtual experience” [0037]).
Laskin does not teach the immersive video headset having a disposable head pad positioned over a crown of a head of the medical patient and disposable eye pads.
However, Laskin discloses “one or more portions of the immersion system 100 may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable.” ([0022]) and “In some embodiments, disposable components may allow users to easily have a sanitized or sterile system. For example, the surround 102, or portions thereof may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable in some embodiments” ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the pads are disposable, as taught by Laskin, for the benefit of providing sanitary conditions between usage (Laskin: [0022]).
Laskin does not teach the immersive video headset having a head pad positioned over a crown of a head of the medical patient and eye pads.
However, Serota discloses an “adjustable headset is an all in one device” (abstract) and teaches a headset (Figure 3) having a head pad (“padding serves as a soft layer between the adjustable support band 24 and a user's head, increasing user comfort” [0023]) positioned over a crown of a head of the medical patient ([0023], Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin such that the immersive video headset having a head pad positioned over a crown of a head of the medical patient, as taught by Serota, for the benefit of increasing user comfort (Serota: [0023]).
The modified invention of Laskin and Serota does not teach eye pads.
However, Esmonde discloses “a modular goggle assembly” (abstract) and teaches disposable eye pads (“cushion 160” column 4 lines 19 - 21 Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin and Serota to incorporate eye pads, as taught by Esmonde, for the benefit of providing a “light-proof connection” (Esmonde: column 4 lines 19 - 21) and sanitary options between different user’s usage.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin, Serota and Esmonde, as applied in claim 18, in view of Brace.
Regarding claim 19, Laskin, Serota and Esmonde teach all limitations of claim 18. The modified invention of Laskin, Serota and Esmonde teaches the disposable (Laskin: “one or more portions of the immersion system 100 may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable.” [0022]) head pad (Brace: “ear pads 106” [0031] – [0040] [0049] Figures 1 and 5) and the disposable (Laskin: “one or more portions of the immersion system 100 may be configured to be disposable and/or recyclable.” [0022]) eye pads (Esmonde: “cushion 160” column 4 lines 19 - 21 Figure 2).
The modified invention of Laskin, Serota and Esmonde does not teach the pads are snap-on.
However, Brace discloses “headsets, and more particularly to ear pads configured to accommodate eyewear, headwear, or other articles worn or carried by a user” ([0002]) and teaches snap-on parts (“snap” [0034] [0039] Figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin, Serota and Esmonde to incorporate snap-on parts, as taught by Brace, for the benefit of providing comfort and ease of attachment (Brace: [0003]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laskin, Serota and Esmonde, as applied in claim 18, in view of Hodges.
Regarding claim 20, Laskin, Serota and Esmonde teach all limitations of claim 18. The modified invention of Laskin, Serota and Esmonde teaches the immersive video headset (Laskin: “a surround 302, a display 304” [0035], Figure 3).
The modified invention of Laskin, Serota and Esmonde does not teach screen mirroring so that medical personnel can view what the medical patient is watching and make adjustments.
However, Hodges discloses a “virtual reality system” including a headset (abstract) and teaches screen mirroring so that medical personnel can view what the medical patient is watching and make adjustments (“A separate video screen may be provided for the therapist to monitor, so that the therapist can better control the emulated environment.”, column 3 lines 12 - 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Laskin, Serota and Esmonde to incorporate screen mirroring so that medical personnel can view what the medical patient is watching and make adjustments, as taught by Hodges, for the benefit of enhances the results of the immersive environment (Hodges: column 3 lines 37 - 38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 9 March 2026, with respect to claim objection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objection for claim 19 of 9 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 9 March 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 6 and 16 - 17 of 9 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, page 6, filed 9 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “[Laskin] does not disclose a nitrous hood in the claimed system provides a more secure seal and robust scavenging to reduce ambient air exposure than a nitrous nose piece”. However, Laskin discloses a nitrous hood ([0036], Figure 3) having a nitrous nose piece (“nose piece 306” [0036] Figure 3) to deliver nitrous oxide to the medical patient (“the nose piece 306 allowing for the delivery of nitrous oxide” [0036]). Thus, examiner interprets as reading on “nitrous nose piece”.
Applicant's arguments, page 6, filed 9 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “no disclosure of disposable pads in areas that touch or contact with the medical patient, especially as there is no disclosure that the surround or electronic display of Laskin are intended to even touch the user”. Laskin discloses a plurality of parts (“padding 114 or cushioning, such as a foam padding”, [0017] Figure 1) that touch or contact with the medical patient (as shown in Laskin’s annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 – 17 and 18 – 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freeman et al (US 20210382311 A1) discloses “how to achieve a very-high resolution, including 60 pixels per degree, which is the highest resolution a human eye can see at 20/20” (Freeman et al: [0016]; [0157]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791