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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 recites the limitation "the mechanism" in the claims. Claim 10, recites “one or more mechanisms”, therefore the language should remain consistent in the dependent claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correction is required.
Claims 10-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites the first pivot and the second pivot comprises one or more mechanisms. It is not clear if each of the first pivot and the second pivot comprise one or more mechanisms, or if the combination of one mechanism comprised in the first pivot and one mechanism comprised in the second pivot equates to the recited one or more mechanisms. Further, claims 11 and 12 recite “the mechanism” which thereby indicates that the first pivot includes a single mechanism. Therefore the language fails to specifically point out the number of mechanisms of the first pivot and the second pivot. Claim 11, also recites that “the mechanism of the first pivot comprises a variable torque resistance”. Similarly claim 19, recites “the control mechanism comprising a frictional torque”. It is not clear how a pivot can “comprise” a variable, or frictional, torque as recited. For purpose of rejection it will be understood as the pivot provides a variable or frictional torque. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12-15 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pendergast (US Patent Publication No. 2002/0120979) in view of Werjefelt et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0011297; hereinafter Werjefelt).
With reference to claim 1, Pendergast discloses a head-mounted device (see paragraph 70; Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a wearable support (12) configured to be worn on a head of a user (see paragraph 70; Figs. 1-3); and
a device (14) mounted to the wearable support (12) by a hinge assembly (10) (see paragraphs 70, 72-73; Figs. 1-3), the hinge assembly (10) comprising:
a mounting component (40) connected to the wearable support (12) (see paragraphs 72, 103; Figs. 1-3),
no more than a first pivot (70) and a second pivot (104) (see paragraphs 73, 103, 111; Figs. 1-3), the first pivot (70) comprising a first side and a second side (see paragraph 103; Figs. 1-3), and
a bar (72) connected to the mounting component (40) at the first side and the second side of the first pivot (70) (see paragraph 103; Figs. 1-3) and also connected to the heads-up device at the second pivot (104) (see paragraphs 103, 111; Figs. 1-3).
While disclosing a heads-up device having the mounting component as recited, Pendergast fails to disclose the usage of a display device mounted to the wearable support as recited.
Werjefelt discloses a heads up display apparatus (see Fig. 1) having a wearable support (15) configured to be worn on a head of a user (10) (see paragraphs 24-26; Figs. 1-4); and a display device (2) mounted to the wearable support (15) by a hinge assembly (12, 14) (see paragraphs 26-28; Figs. 1-3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of the display device similar to that which is taught by Werjefelt to be used as the device in a head mounted device arrangement similar to that which is taught by Pendergast to display information to the user (see Werjefelt; paragraph 29-30).
With reference to claim 2, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 1, wherein Pendergast further discloses wherein one or more of the first pivot (70) and the second pivot (104) comprises a corresponding variable resistance mechanism (92, 104) that has less resistance through a transition point than other locations along one or more of a first path of travel of the head-up display and a second path of travel of the head-up display, the first path of travel being from a deployed position to a stowed position, and the second path of travel being from the stowed position to the deployed position (see paragraphs 105, 108, 111-112; Figs. 1-4) .
With reference to claim 5, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 2, wherein Pendergast further discloses wherein the variable resistance mechanism (92, 104) comprises a corresponding cam mechanism (104) configured to generate a portion of a variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 111-112; Figs. 1-4).
With reference to claim 8, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 1, wherein Pendergast further discloses an adjustable stopper that allows a position of a hard-stop on the first pivot (70) to be adjusted (in teaching the usage of detent system (92); see paragraphs 104-105; Figs. 1-2).
With reference to claim 9, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 1, wherein Pendergast further discloses wherein the hinge assembly (10) further comprises an adjustment mechanism (60) that allows a position of the first pivot (70) relative to the mounting component (40) to be adjusted (see paragraphs 73, 103; Figs. 1-4).
With reference to claim 10, Pendergast discloses a head-mounted device (see paragraph 70; Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a wearable support (12) configured to be worn on a head of a user (see paragraph 70; Figs. 1-3); and
a device (14) mounted to the wearable support (12) by a hinge assembly (10) (see paragraph 70, 72-73; Figs. 1-3), the hinge assembly (10) comprising:
a mounting component (40) connected to the wearable support (12) (see paragraphs 72, 103; Figs. 1-3),
no more than a first pivot (70) and a second pivot (110) (see paragraphs 73, 103, 111; Figs. 1-3), the first pivot (70) and the second pivot (104) comprising one or more mechanisms configured to selectively restrict angular movement of the first and second pivots (70, 110) such that a positioning of the hinge assembly (10) is maintained (in teaching the usage of detents (102) and ball plungers (96) for restraining fist pivot (70), and a cam system for adjusting tilt at the second pivot (104); see paragraphs 104-105, 111-112; Fig. 2),
a first bar (72) connected to the mounting component (40) at the first pivot (70) (see paragraph 103; Figs. 1, 3), and
a second bar (110) attached to the first bar (72) at the second pivot (104) and attached to the heads-up device (14) (see paragraphs 111-112; Figs. 1-4).
While disclosing a heads-up device having the mounting component as recited, Pendergast fails to disclose the usage of a display device mounted to the wearable support as recited.
Werjefelt discloses a heads up display apparatus (see Fig. 1) having a wearable support (15) configured to be worn on a head of a user (10) (see paragraphs 24-26; Figs. 1-4); and a display device (2) mounted to the wearable support (15) by a hinge assembly (12, 14) (see paragraphs 26-28; Figs. 1-3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of the display device similar to that which is taught by Werjefelt to be used as the device in a head mounted device arrangement similar to that which is taught by Pendergast to display information to the user (see Werjefelt; paragraph 29-30).
With reference to claim 13, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 10, wherein Pendergast further discloses an adjustable stopper that allows a position of a hard-stop on the first pivot (70) to be adjusted (in teaching the usage of detent system (92); see paragraphs 104-105; Figs. 1-2).
With reference to claim 14, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 10, wherein Pendergast further discloses wherein one or more of the first pivot (70) and the second pivot (104) comprises one or more detents (92) (see paragraphs 104-105; Figs. 1-2).
With reference to claim 15, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 10, wherein Pendergast further discloses wherein the hinge assembly (10) further comprises an adjustment mechanism (60) that allows a position of the first pivot (70) relative to the mounting component to be adjusted (see paragraphs 73, 103; Figs. 1-4).
With reference to claim 16, Pendergast discloses a head-mounted device (see paragraph 70; Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a wearable support (12) configured to be worn on a head of a user (see paragraph 70; Figs. 1-3); and
a device (14) mounted to the wearable support (12) by a hinge assembly (10) (see paragraphs 70, 72-73; Figs. 1-3), the hinge assembly (10) comprising:
a mounting component (40) connected to the wearable support (12) (see paragraphs 72, 103; Figs. 1-3),
no more than one pivot (70) (see paragraphs 73, 103, 111; Figs. 1-3),
a bar (72) connected to the mounting component (40) at the one pivot (70) and also connected to the head-up device (14) (see paragraphs 103, 111; Figs. 1-3),
a first adjustment mechanism (60) that allows a position of the one pivot (70) relative to the mounting component (40) to be adjusted (see paragraphs 88, 103-104; Figs. 1-3); and
a second adjustment mechanism (104) that allows a position of the head-up device (14) relative to the bar (72) to be adjusted (see paragraphs 73, 111-112; Figs. 1-4).
While disclosing a heads-up device having the mounting component as recited, Pendergast fails to disclose the usage of a display device mounted to the wearable support as recited.
Werjefelt discloses a heads up display apparatus (see Fig. 1) having a wearable support (15) configured to be worn on a head of a user (10) (see paragraphs 24-26; Figs. 1-4); and a display device (2) mounted to the wearable support (15) by a hinge assembly (12, 14) (see paragraphs 26-28; Figs. 1-3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of the display device similar to that which is taught by Werjefelt to be used as the device in a head mounted device arrangement similar to that which is taught by Pendergast to display information to the user (see Werjefelt; paragraph 29-30).
With reference to claim 17, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 16, wherein Pendergast further discloses wherein the one pivot (70) comprises a tilt mechanism (60) that allows movement between a first deployed position and a second deployed position of the head-up display (see paragraphs 88, 103; Figs. 1, 3).
With reference to claim 18, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 17, wherein Pendergast further discloses wherein the one pivot (70) comprises one or more hard-stops to restrict angular movement of the one pivot (70) (in teaching the usage of detent system (92); see paragraphs 104-105; Figs. 1-2), and wherein an angular position of the one or more hard-stops relative to a rotational axis of the one pivot (70) is adjustable (see paragraphs 104-105; Figs. 1-2).
With reference to claim 20, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 16, wherein Pendergast further discloses wherein one or more of the first adjustment mechanism (60) and the second adjustment mechanism (104) comprises interlocking features to restrict movement of the corresponding mechanism when engaged (in teaching detent system (92) and cam system (104); see paragraphs 104-105, 111-112; Figs. 1-4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pendergast in view of Werjefelt as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ewer et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/01299104; hereinafter Ewer).
With reference to claim 3, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 2, and while disclosing the first and second path of travel, neither reference disclose different resistance profiles as recited.
Ewer discloses a screw and rod system of hinge joints that provide independent first and second ranges of motion (see abstract; Fig. 7) wherein the first path of travel has a different resistance profile than the second path of travel (in teaching first and second resistances; see paragraphs 52-53, 56; Figs. 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a variable resistance hinge joints similar to that which is taught by Ewer to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Pendergast and Werjefelt to thereby independent positioning of the joints (see Ewer, paragraph 47).
Claims 4, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pendergast in view of Werjefelt as applied to claim 2 or 10 above, and further in view of Pombo et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0180895; hereinafter Pombo).
With reference to claim 4, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 2, however fail to disclose friction collar as recited.
Pombo discloses a head-mounted display having a modular configuration for positioning a display device in a viewable position for a user (see abstract; Figs. 2, 8), wherein a variable resistance mechanism (61) comprises a corresponding friction collar (96) configured to generate a portion of a variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 61-62, 68; Figs. 2-3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pombo to be carried out in a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pendergast and Werjefelt to thereby provide an alternative coupling for positioning the display device (see Pombo; paragraph 62).
With reference to claim 6, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 2, however fail to disclose a torsion spring as recited.
Pombo discloses a head-mounted display having a modular configuration for positioning a display device in a viewable position for a user (see abstract; Figs. 2, 8), wherein the variable resistance mechanism of the first pivot comprises a torsion spring (110) configured to generate a portion of a variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 65-67; Figs. 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pombo to be carried out in a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pendergast and Werjefelt to thereby provide an alternative coupling for positioning the display device (see Pombo; paragraph 13).
With reference to claim 7, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 6, wherein Pombo further discloses wherein the torsion spring (110) is configured to bias movement of the first pivot opposite of gravity (see paragraphs 61-62; Figs. 2, 3).
With reference to claim 11, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 10, however fail to disclose a torsion spring as recited.
Pombo further discloses wherein the mechanism of the first pivot (56) comprises a variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 65-67; Figs. 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pombo to be carried out in a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pendergast and Werjefelt to thereby provide an alternative coupling for positioning the display device (see Pombo; paragraph 13).
With reference to claim 12, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt disclose the head-mounted display device of claim 10, however fail to disclose the first pivot as recited.
Pombo discloses a head-mounted display having a modular configuration for positioning a display device in a viewable position for a user (see abstract; Figs. 2, 8), wherein the mechanism of the first pivot (56) comprises one or more of a friction collar (96), cam mechanism, or a torsion spring (110) configured to generate at least a portion of the variable torque resistance (see paragraphs 61-62, 65-67; Figs. 2-3, 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pombo to be carried out in a variable resistance mechanism similar to that which is taught by Pendergast and Werjefelt to thereby provide an alternative coupling for positioning the display device (see Pombo; paragraph 62).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pendergast in view of Werjefelt as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Pombo et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0180895; hereinafter Pombo).
With reference to claim 19, Pendergast in view of Werjefelt discloses the head-mounted display device of claim 18, however fails to disclose a tilt mechanism as recited.
Lowry discloses the tilt mechanism (10) comprises an eccentric pin
and a control mechanism connected to the eccentric pin (see paragraph 23),
the control mechanism comprising a frictional torque (see paragraphs 28,
39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to allow the usage of a variable resistance cam
mechanism similar to that which is taught by Lowry to thereby provide
alternative arrangements for providing frictional torque for positioning the
display similar to that which is taught by Pendergast and Werjefelt at the hinge location (see Lowry; paragraphs 29-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. YEE et al. (US2023/0123520) discloses an electronic device hinge having a cam lock hinge having a locked pivot point, wherein the hinge includes a fist and second pivot point, and wherein the second pivot point has a rotational resistance that is less than a first rotational resistance of the first pivot (see paragraphs 39-67; Figs. 1-9)
b. WELLS (US5,003,300) discloses a head mounted display having an attachment mechanism for attaching the display unit to the head of the user, a support member connected to the attachment mechanism for supporting the display unit (see abstract; column 4, lines 34- column 6, line, 50; Figs. 1-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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 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.
/Alecia D English/ Examiner, Art Unit 2625
571-270-1595
Prosecution Insights