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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hedges does not teach the limitation, “a removable mounting interface…configured to mount the displaying device on a headband and a head harness frame”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitation is functional. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature “by what it does rather than by what it is” (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
The teaching of Hedges would inherently comprise, “a removable mounting interface…configured to mount the displaying device on a headband and a head harness frame”, this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of, “The base plate 12 is preferably positioned above a brow edge 17 and is removable from the helmet 10 and, in this embodiment, is affixed to the helmet 10 by latches 18, 19.” [Par 27], and, “Accordingly, the mounting structure for the display pod 42 provides a simple and inexpensive means for enabling the user to position the display pod 42 in the line of sight of one of the user's eyes, then retain that position by pressing the mounting surfaces 43, 47 together--thereby affixing the mounting surfaces 43, 47 to each other.” [Par 38]. Both the base plate 12 and mounting surfaces 43 and 47 are specifically designed to be removably affixed to a cranial mount, and since there is no claimed structure that narrows the scope of the apparatus, in such a way as to perform the function of mounting the displaying device on a headband and a head harness frame, the teaching of Hedges reads on the claimed limitation. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Therefore the rejection of Claims 1-12 is sustained in light of the Amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hedges (US 20120120482 A1).
Re Claim 1, Hedges discloses on Fig. 1-4, a viewing system (See Fig. 1 and 2), configured to interact with a cranial mount (base plate 12 on helmet 10 and mounting surfaces 43 and 47), said viewing system comprising: a detachable displaying device (LOE 48 is attached by mounting surfaces 43 and 47) [Par 36] , comprising: a combiner, placed in front of one eye of the user, and able to place information in superposition with an exterior view (display pod 42 displays information on LOE 48 to the user’s eyes without interfering with other view accessories) [Par 30], a removable mounting interface (mounting surfaces 43 and 47 use fasteners 51 and 53 to removably mount LOE 48 and display pod 42 and base plat 1 is removable from helmet 12 by latches 18 and 19)[Par 27 and 35] configured to mount the displaying device on a plurality of cranial mounts among at least a helmet (Fig. 1-4 show the device mounted on a helmet 10), a headband, and a head-harness frame (base plate 12 is removable from the helmet 12 by latches 18 and 19, and mounting surface 47 and 43 and mounting bracket 44 can be used to removable mount and position the display pod 42, on at least a helmet, but base plate 12 and mounting fasteners 47 and 43 also would provide the claimed structure to removably mount the display device on a headband or head-harness frame, sin) [Par 27, and 34 and 38-39].
The teaching of Hedges would inherently comprise, “a removable mounting interface…configured to mount the displaying device on a headband and a head harness frame” , this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of, “The base plate 12 is preferably positioned above a brow edge 17 and is removable from the helmet 10 and, in this embodiment, is affixed to the helmet 10 by latches 18, 19.” [Par 27], and, “Accordingly, the mounting structure for the display pod 42 provides a simple and inexpensive means for enabling the user to position the display pod 42 in the line of sight of one of the user's eyes, then retain that position by pressing the mounting surfaces 43, 47 together--thereby affixing the mounting surfaces 43, 47 to each other.” [Par 38]. Both the base plate 12 and mounting surfaces 43 and 47 are specifically designed to be removably affixed to a cranial mount, and since there is no claimed structure that narrows the scope of the apparatus, in such a way as to perform the function of mounting the displaying device on a headband and a head harness frame, the teaching of Hedges reads on the claimed limitation.
Re Claim 2, Hedges discloses, the viewing system according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the detachable displaying device comprises a goggles/binoculars-mount-fastening interface (jet mount 14), the viewing system comprising detachable goggles/binoculars (night vision goggles 22) [Par 27], the goggles/binoculars comprising a goggles/binoculars mount (accessory joint 16) able to be fastened against the displaying device via mechanical association of the goggles/binoculars-mount-fastening interface and the goggles/binoculars mount in such a way that the displaying device is located between the eye of the user and the goggles/binoculars (accessory joint 16 enables accessories like NVG 22 to be pivoted to and from the front of the helmet so that, LOE 48 is between the user’s eyes and NVG 22) [Par 28-30].
Re claim 3, Hedges discloses, the viewing system according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 3-4, further comprising: a first fastening system mounted on the removable mounting interface (mounting bracket 44), a second fastening system complementary (mounting surfaces 41, 45, and 47) to the first fastening system [Par 33-36], mounted (mounting surface 43 is on mounting bracket 44 which is a part of base plate 12) [Par 33-34] on the cranial mount ( base plate 12) , the first fastening system being configured to be associated with the second fastening system so as to secure the first fastening system (bracket 44 is secured with mounting surfaces 41 and 45) [Par 34].
Re Claim 7, Hedges discloses, the viewing system according to claim 3, wherein the second fastening system (mounting surfaces 41, 45, and 47) is rotatable about a second axis (A2) parallel to the visual field of the user (mounting surface 47 in an ideal embodiment is rotated relative to mounting surface 43 so that the LOE is centered, since mounting surface 43 is at angle, at least some element of the rotating would be about an axis parallel to the user’s FOV) [Par 36].
Re Claim 8, Hedges discloses, the viewing system according to claim 3, and Hedges further discloses Fig. 1 and 4, said viewing system being configured to be associated with a helmet (helmet 10), the helmet comprising a fitting plate (base plate 12) connected to the second fastening system (base plate connects to mounting surfaces 41, 45, and 47) [Par 33] and to the goggles/binoculars-mount-fastening interface (jet mount 14), the displaying device (LOE 48 and display pod 42) and the goggles/binoculars being translatable with respect to the fitting plate of the helmet along a vertical axis perpendicular to the transverse axis and to the visual-field second axis (accessory joint 16 can be pivoted up, and mounting surface 47 in an ideal embodiment is moved relative to mounting surface 43, and at least a component of both would be along a vertical axis) [Par 27 and 36].
Re Claim 11, Hedges discloses, the viewing system according to claim 2, and further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the goggles/binoculars are night-vision goggles (night vision goggles 22) comprising two identical bodies [Par 27], each body comprising one eyepiece (see Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges in view of Li (CN 111929904 A).
Re Claim 4, Hedges discloses, the viewing system according to claim 3.
But Hedges does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first fastening system comprises a rail system and the second fastening system comprises a T-shaped groove.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Li teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in head mounted displays to include wherein the first fastening system comprises a rail system (limiting plate 23) and the second fastening system comprises a T-shaped groove (limiting groove 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hedges with Li, in order to provide the ability to maintain the device at the position of adjusting [Par 32].
Re Claim 5, Hedges in view of Li discloses, the viewing system according to claim 4, and Li further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the rail system comprises a serrated device (limiting plate 23 has teeth) [Par 34] and wherein the T-shaped groove (groove 24) comprises a ball-plunger system (ball plunger 40 combines with groove 24] [Par 32].
Re Claim 6, Hedges in view of Li discloses, and Li further discloses on Fig. 4, the viewing system according to claim 4, wherein the T-shaped groove (limiting plate 23) is rotatable about a transverse axis (Fig. 4 shows the rotation of support sliding structure 30a, see Fig. 2), one component of which is perpendicular to a visual field of the user ( the rotating of sliding structure 30a and thus limiting plate 23 would be about a transverse axis, see Fig. 4, such that the host 20 is flipped up) [Par 29-30].
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges in view of Watson (US 20170322410 A1).
Re Claim 9, Hedges disclosed, the viewing system according to claim 1, and Hedges further discloses on Fig. 4, a movable visor (display pod 42 moves) [Par 30-32].
But Hedges does not explicitly disclose, wherein the displaying device comprising a first magnetic pole, a visor comprising a second magnetic pole that is complementary to the first magnetic pole, and that is magnetically connected to the first magnetic pole in such a way as to keep the visor in contact with the displaying device.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Watson teaches, on Fig. 13, that it is desirable in head mounted displays to include, wherein the displaying device comprises a first magnetic pole (magnet 196), a visor (vertically oriented tab) comprising a second magnetic pole (magnet 194) that is complementary to the first magnetic pole (magnet 194 and 196 couple)[Par 90], and that is magnetically connected to the first magnetic pole in such a way as to keep the visor in contact with the displaying device (magnet 194 and 196 secure display screen 142) [Par 90]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hedges with Watson in order to secure the display screen as taught by Watson [Par 90].
Re claim 10, Hedges in view of Watson discloses, the viewing system according to claim 9, and Hedges further discloses on Fig. 1, further comprising: a first fastening system mounted on the removable mounting interface (mounting bracket 44), a second fastening system complementary (mounting surfaces 41, 45, and 47) to the first fastening system [Par 33-36], mounted (mounting surface 43 is on mounting bracket 44 which is a part of base plate 12) [Par 33-34] on the cranial mount ( base plate 12) , the first fastening system being configured to be associated with the second fastening system so as to secure the first fastening system (bracket 44 is secured with mounting surfaces 41 and 45) [Par 34], the viewing system being intended to be associated with a helmet (helmet 10), the helmet comprising a fitting plate connected to the second fastening system of the displaying device (base plate 12 serves as a cranial mount and fitting plate), the moveable visor (display pod 42) comprising a fastening strip (fasteners 51 and 53) connected to the fitting plate of the helmet (fasteners 51 and 53 connect display pod 42 to base plate 12) [Par 35-36].
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges in view of Hasgawa (US 20210165221 A1).
Re Claim 12, Hedges discloses, the viewing system according to claim 1, and Hedges further discloses on Fig. 2, wherein the displaying device (driver 46 and LOE 48) comprises a flat-panel screen (LOE 48), its light source (Driver 46), and a pupil-expanding optical combiner (LOE 48 and driver 46 together provides for a different pupil distance and displays information, to the user, as they look through it at other visuals) [Par 30 and 39].
But Hedges does not explicitly disclose, a collimating optic.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Hasegawa teaches, on Fig. 12, that it is desirable in head mounted displays, to include a collimating optic (collimating lens 33) [Par 66]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hedges with Hasegawa in order to convert image light to parallel light, as taught by Hasegawa [Par 66].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park (US 20220082842 A1), similarly teaches a heads up display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights