DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the obvious-type double patenting rejection is obviated by the feature recited in claim 1 drawn to a slipping clutch or resistor. Examiner disagrees such a feature is nonobvious in view of the reference patent and the prior art of record, particularly Kamata and Beck. See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, infra, explaining how the prior art suggests the distinctions between the current claims and the reference patent would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant refers to the functions of the claimed slipping clutch, but does not appear to argue the references are deficient in teaching or suggesting the slipping clutch. Examiner treats these Remarks as being used for informational purposes.
On pages 8–9 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the claimed force accumulator. Examiner disagrees. In explaining prior art dampening features, Examiner was explaining why one skilled in the art would have been led to Applicant’s claimed force accumulator and other complimentary mechanisms such as slipping clutches, etc. being utilized to lower or raise a screen or other device in front of a user. As explained in the rejection’s rationale, Maxon is relied upon for teaching force accumulators, such as springs, assisting pivoting mechanisms into engaged and non-engaged positions by lowering the amount of force required for such movements. Furthermore, Applicant has argued to Examiner that Applicant’s published paragraph [0029] is a key portion of Applicant’s disclosure regarding the operation and characteristics of the claimed force accumulator. See interview summary dated 08/28/2025 and Applicant’s Remarks (09/15/2025), 6. In that paragraph of Applicant’s Specification, Applicant explains the force accumulator not only is prestressed with a force to help the display into the down-position, but also, “The force of the resistance is also supported by the force accumulator.” Therefore, Applicant’s own Specification explains the force accumulator provides both a positive force and a resistive force, thus creating a dampening effect. In addition, the skilled artisan understands that springs can resist both compression and extension and thus naturally provide a dampening effect. Therefore, Maxon’s teachings or the common knowledge of skilled artisans regarding, for example, garage doors, teaches or suggests Applicant’s use of a spring, or similar force accumulator, for providing a force toward a movement direction of an articulating mechanism because both Maxon, general knowledge of garage doors, and general knowledge of springs teach or suggest springs to assist in raising and/or lowering objects due to their ability to counterbalance (resist) forces in both directions. Accordingly, Applicant’s claimed feature is obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 9.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–21 and 23–25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,782,255 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite substantially overlapping subject matter such that one interpreting the mechanical rotational and locking mechanisms of the patented claims would find the resistor and/or slipping clutch of the instant claims nearly equivalents. This is especially true in view of Beck (US 2008/0239523 A1) and its teaching of a slip clutch for a head mounted display for providing smooth resistance during rotational movements (e.g. torque smoothing via controlled slippage) (Beck, ¶ 0019) and further in view of Maxon’s teachings regarding spring assist for pivoting apparatuses from an up position to a down position and vice versa wherein the assist spring reduces the force needed for such articulations (Maxon, ¶ 0014).
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 of this title, 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 1–16, 19–21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 2006/0119539 A1), Kamata (US 2018/0110581), Kato (US 2018/0024369 A1) (herein “Kato ‘369”), Beck (US 2008/0239523 A1), Happel (US 2015/0264992 A1) and Maxon (US 2005/0168661 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device, for transferring images of a microscopy device (Kato does not appear to disclose the HMD can be used for microsurgery; However, Kamata, ¶ 0006: teaches surgery performed using a microscope; Kamata, ¶ 0063: teaches the microscope’s display can be realized using a head-mounted display (HMD)), comprising: a supporting device for arranging the visualization device on the head of a user (Kato, Title: teaches a head-mounted display; Kato, Fig. 16: illustrates that supporting structure holds the display on the head of a user), at least one mounting device for mounting at least one optical display device about a point of rotation on the supporting device, the mounting device including a pivot axis, the at least one optical display device configured to be movable by being rotated around the pivot axis (Kato, ¶ 0238 and Fig. 21, Elements 11 and 52: teaches the support arm 13a rotates display element 11 about pivot point 52, which is attached to a motor; see also Kato, ¶ 0217 and Fig. 16, Elements 11 and 13a: teaching the support arm 13a rotates display element 11; Kato, ¶ 0249: teaches to one skilled in the art that bearings can be used to achieve rotation with or without motors; see also Kamata, e.g. ¶¶ 0086 and 0130), wherein the at least one optical display device on the at least one mounting device is movable between an operating position and a rest position, such that the at least one optical display device can be fixed in the operating position in the field of view of the user and, in the rest position outside of the field of view of the user (Kato, ¶ 0238 and Fig. 21, Elements 11 and 52: teaches the support arm 13a rotates display element 11 about pivot point 52, which is attached to a motor; see also Kato, ¶ 0217 and Fig. 16, Elements 11 and 13a: teaching the support arm 13a rotates display element 11; Kato, ¶ 0037: teaches the display can be automated to move the display to a position outside the field of view of the user; Examiner finds, consistent with Kato, ¶ 0036, that the particular arrangements illustrated and described in Kato are non-limiting and that in view of Kato’s teachings regarding the rotatable pivot point actuated by a motor and the desirability to have an automated function to remove the display from the field of view of the user, other prior art arrangements are within the level of skill in the art), and wherein the visualization device further comprises a slipping clutch and/or resistor to avoid an unintentional movement of the at least one optical display device from the rest position into the operating position and/or vice versa (Examiner interprets the slipping clutch consistent with Applicant’s Fig. 7 wherein stop lever 24, locking device 12, and energy accumulator 29 work in concert to lift the display into a locked, up-position (see Applicant’s published ¶ 0035); Examiner finds Applicant’s Fig. 7 is similar to a top-view of a common door in one’s house wherein the stop lever 24 is the door and wherein the locking device 12 and energy accumulator 29 are together a spring-loaded door latch that retracts into the recess when the door is moved from an open configuration to a closed configuration, but then mechanically latches the closed door such that it is latched closed; Examiner further finds that welding helmets (i.e. welding hoods) have used such claimed slipping clutches to overcome a resistance to the visor coming down in front of the user; Kato ‘369, ¶ 0050: teaches a locking mechanism that is accomplished via spring force; Kamata, ¶ 0075: describes a lock mode that switches between a free movement and a restrained movement; see also Kamata, ¶ 0161: teaches rotation joints capable of locked modes and all free modes; Because neither Kamata, nor Kato specifically teaches a slipping clutch, the rejection further relies on Beck; Beck, ¶ 0019: teaches a slip clutch used on a head mounted display (HMD) for the purpose of realizing a dampened rotational movement of an adjustable feature on the HMD (e.g. torque smoothing via controlled slippage)), the slipping clutch or resistor configured to allow a movement of the at least one optical display device from the rest position into the operating position and/or vice versa upon a nodding head movement of the user (Beck, ¶ 0019: teaches a slip clutch used on a head mounted display (HMD) for the purpose of realizing a dampened rotational movement of an adjustable feature on the HMD (e.g. torque smoothing via controlled slippage); Happel, e.g. ¶ 0078: teaches a helmet with a rotating mechanism that allows for locking between a down and up position via quick head motion wherein the locking mechanism is self-latching), and wherein the at least one optical display device has a force accumulator configured to provide a prestress in a movement direction of the optical display device to support overcoming the slipping clutch or resistor upon the nodding head movement of the user, allowing gravity to move the at least one optical display device from the rest position into the operating position by a rotational movement of the at least one optical display device being rotated around the pivot axis of the mounting device (Examiner notes the claims is interpreted wherein the force accumulator assists gravity; Examiner also notes this feature is like an extension spring (tension spring) on a single-panel garage door that provides lift assist to reduce the force of movement of the actuating device up or down such that it serves to counterbalance the weight of the garage door so that the weight of the garage door is largely nullified within the system; Examiner also notes such a feature is well-known as a basic dampening feature in the art and that, as broadly claimed, the force accumulator can be gas or mechanical springs, torque springs, etc and can be used for either the down or the up movement; see plethora of prior art references cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; Maxon, ¶ 0014: teaches a spring assist for pivoting a display screen cover from an up position to a down position and vice versa wherein the assist spring dramatically reduces the force needed for such articulations; That is, Maxon teaches or suggests an assist spring, or similar device, for offloading some of the force required to actuate the display out of the field of view of the user. Indeed, such tension springs have been in use for bringing heavier loads into substantial equilibrium (counterbalancing), most notably in garage door applications or dental/surgical arms for operatory lights. The rejection relies on a mechanism closely related to the invention wherein the same actuation as claimed is accomplished with a lift assist spring, or similar device, to move a panel out of the field of view of the viewer. Other prior art consistent with this finding, that such a feature is obvious, is provided under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action. The nature of the amended feature and the prevalence of the feature as a known technique for solving the problem of counterbalancing heavily weighted actuation substantially weighs against a finding of non-obviousness).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Kato, with those of Kamata, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (HMDs) and because Kamata itself explains that microsurgery display systems can be implemented through HMDs. Thus, Applicant’s combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Kato and Kamata used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Kato and Kamata, with those of Kato ‘369, because both Kamata and Kato ‘369 recognize the benefits of locking a moveable, rotatable joint when required by user preference such that the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Kato, Kamata, and Kato ‘369 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Kato, Kamata, and Kato ‘369, with those of Beck, because both Kamata and Kato ‘369 recognize the benefits of locking a moveable, rotatable joint when required by user preference of an HMD and Beck explains that a slip clutch on an HMD is known to limit manual forces along a rotational adjustment to protect sensitive optics or mechanics such that the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. Indeed, Beck explains slip clutches are beneficial for dampening mechanical forces along a rotatable joint. This rationale applies to all combinations of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, and Beck used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, and Beck, with those of Happel, because all five references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (head-mounted devices) and because Happel evidences that utilizing locking mechanisms in head-worn devices capable of movement out of the field of view of the user using head nods was known to the skilled artisan prior to Applicant’s filing. Thus, Applicant’s combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, and Happel used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, and Happel, with those of Maxon, because all six references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (head-mounted devices or display devices) and because Maxon evidences that utilizing a pretensioning spring or similar device to reduce the force required to raise and lower an object out of the field of view of the viewer (like a garage door) was known to the skilled artisan prior to Applicant’s filing. Thus, Applicant’s combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 1, characterized in that the visualization device further comprises at least one drive device via which the at least one optical display device on the at least one mounting device is movable between an operating position and a rest position (Kato, ¶ 0562: explains the movements described can be accomplished by a driving member; Kato, ¶ 0238 and Fig. 21, Elements 11 and 52: teaches the support arm 13a rotates display element 11 about pivot point 52, which is attached to a motor; see also Kato, ¶ 0217 and Fig. 16, Elements 11 and 13a: teaching the support arm 13a rotates display element 11; Kato, ¶ 0249: teaches to one skilled in the art that bearings can be used to achieve rotation with or without motors; see also Kamata, e.g. ¶¶ 0086 and 0130), such that the at least one optical display device can be fixed in the operating position in the field of view of the user and, in the rest position outside of the field of view of the user, wherein the at least one drive device is movable by at least one control device (Kato, ¶ 0034: teaches a control part for moving the display out-of-view; Kato, ¶ 0562: explains the movements described can be accomplished by a driving member).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 2, characterized in that the at least one control device comprises at least one actuating device which can be activated by the user for adjusting the drive device (Examiner interprets the actuation device can be a button or joystick or similar on a keypad or control pad for inputting a command for the motor to move the display out of the way; Kato, ¶ 0037: teaches an input device for a user to control the driving motor of the rotating motor that moves the display out of a field a view of the user).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 3, characterized in that the at least one actuating device is separated or spaced apart from the at least one drive device (see treatment of claim 1 regarding the input from a user to move the display out of the way; Examiner finds whether or not a keypad is physically integrated into the HMD or a separate device is obvious in view of the level of skill in the art; KSR – combining things combinable or separating things separable is not inventive).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 3, characterized in that the at least one control device is characterized through a mechanical connection, an electric connection, a hydraulic connection or a pneumatic connection between the at least one actuating device and the at least one drive device (Examiner finds the actuating device is the moveable arm, the drive device is the motor, and the control device is the keypad; Kato, ¶ 398 and Fig. 21: describe electrical and mechanical connections between elements).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 2, characterized in that the at least one drive device comprises a mechanic, electric, hydraulic or pneumatic drive (Kato, ¶ 398: teaches the motor is an electric motor).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 2, characterized in that the at least one drive device is part of at least one control device (Examiner finds whether or not a keypad is physically integrated into the HMD or a separate device is obvious in view of the level of skill in the art; KSR – combining things combinable or separating things separable is not inventive).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 2, characterized in that the at least one drive device is formed by an actuator, a linear motor, a servo motor or an electric excitable magnet (Kato, ¶ 0307: teaches the driving device is a motor; Examiner finds the skilled artisan would not find the type of motor relevant so long as it does not job).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 3, characterized in that the at least one actuating device is activatable through a touch of the user, preferable through a switch, a push-button or lever (Kato, ¶ 0006: evidences buttons were known at the time of the invention).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 3, characterized in that the at least one actuating device is activatable in a contact-free manner through the user (Kato, ¶ 0053: teaches a sensor for contactless actuation; see also treatment of claim 12).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 3, characterized in that the at least one actuating device comprises at least one sensor or at least one sensor coupled such that the actuating device is activatable in a contact-free manner through gestures or acoustic commands from the user (Kato, ¶ 0053: teaches a sensor for contactless actuation; see also treatment of claim 12).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 3, characterized in that the at least one actuating device comprises at least one transmission device and the at least one drive device or the at least one control device comprising a receiver device, such that a signal transmission between the at least one actuating device and the at least one drive device can be established (Kato, ¶ 0477: teaches various sensors generating signals transmitted to a state detection device which can contactlessly drive the control arm).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 12, characterized in that the signal transmission is wireless (Kamata, ¶ 0072: evidences that wireless methods were known prior to the invention filing date; Examiner finds making connections wirelessly is obvious to one skilled in the art).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one display device is slewable mounted at the at least one mounting device (Examiner finds the following dictionary definition of slew instructive: to turn on an axis; rotate; Examiner notes it can also mean slide; see treatment of claim 1 regarding rotation; Kato, ¶ 0208: teaches a guide part for guiding the mounting part through a slide motion).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one display device is movable along guide device, mounted at the at least one mounting device (Kato, ¶ 0208: teaches a guide part for guiding the mounting part through a slide motion).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 2, characterized in that the at least one mounting device is formed by the at least one drive device (Kato, Fig. 21: illustrates the mounting arm connects through motors 52 and 53).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests microscopy device with at least one visualization device according to claim 1 (see treatment of claim 1 regarding Kamata’s teachings of microsurgery using HMDs).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests a method of medical intervention, surgery and/or medical examination, the method comprising: obtaining image data utilizing a microscopy device according to claim 19; transmitting the image data to a visualization device according to claim 1, which allows visualization of the image data (see treatment of claim 1 regarding Kamata’s teachings of microsurgery using HMDs).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 1, wherein the visualization device is a virtual reality headset or a head mounted display (see treatment of claim 1 regarding Kamata’s teachings of microsurgery using HMDs).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 1, wherein the slipping clutch or resistor is provided in the at least one mounting device (Kamata, ¶¶ 0110 and 0111: teach excitation-actuated brakes (locking mechanisms) for rotatable joints; see also Kamata, ¶ 0150; Examiner finds it obvious that the locking mechanism can be placed in any configuration that would allow the function, which would include providing the locking mechanism in the stationary component, the moving component, or other mechanically coupled component of the system).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 2, wherein the slipping clutch or resistor is provided in the at least one control device (Kamata, ¶¶ 0110 and 0111: teach excitation-actuated brakes (locking mechanisms) for rotatable joints; see also Kamata, ¶ 0150; Examiner finds it obvious that the locking mechanism can be placed in any configuration that would allow the function, which would include providing the locking mechanism in the stationary component, the moving component, or other mechanically coupled component of the system).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 15, wherein the resistor is provided by the at least one guide device (Kamata, ¶¶ 0110 and 0111: teach excitation-actuated brakes (locking mechanisms) for rotatable joints; see also Kamata, ¶ 0150; Examiner finds it obvious that the locking mechanism can be placed in any configuration that would allow the function, which would include providing the locking mechanism in the stationary component, the moving component, or other mechanically coupled component of the system).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, Maxon, and Van ‘T Hooft (US 2018/0261146 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Van ‘T Hooft teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one display device is formed by a curved OLED display (Van ‘T Hooft, ¶ 0071: evidences that HMDs utilizing curved OLEDs was known prior to Applicant’s filing).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon, with those of Van ‘T Hooft, because all seven references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (HMDs or conventional displays) and because Van ‘T Hooft evidences that utilizing curved OLED displays on HMDs was obvious to the skilled artisan prior to Applicant’s filing date. Thus, Applicant’s combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, Maxon, and Van ‘T Hooft used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, Maxon, and Stroetmann (US 2018/0261146 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Stroetmann teaches or suggests visualization device according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one air-conditioning device, preferable formed by a ventilator, is arranged at the visualization device (Stroetmann, ¶¶ 0005–0007: teaches a ventilation system for an HMD).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, and Maxon, with those of Stroetmann, because all seven references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (HMDs or conventional displays) and because Stroetmann evidences that utilizing air conditioning to regulate the environment around the user of an HMD was known to the skilled artisan prior to Applicant’s filing. Thus, Applicant’s combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Kato, Kamata, Kato ‘369, Beck, Happel, Maxon, and Stroetmann used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aghara (US 2017/0344107 A1) teaches HMD displays for microscopy (e.g. ¶ 0013), a motor for actuating displays (e.g. ¶ 0021), the benefit of VR HMDs (e.g. ¶ 0025), and OLED as a display technology for such displays (e.g. ¶ 0062).
Schneider (US 2015/0173846 A1) teaches microsurgery using HMDs.
Osterhout (US 10,860,100 B2) teaches microscopy and gesture control combined with HMD technology.
Kobayashi (US 2016/0062457 A1) teaches an HMD with a display portion that moves out of the way of the sightline of the user.
Yu (US 2019/0212521 A1) teaches a locking mechanism as an elastic member similar to a spring (e.g. ¶ 0027).
Kevin Caron, “A Better Welding Helmet? – Kevin Caron,” YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSgBSx4GjGc, June 5, 2013. The video teaches cooling inside the helmet and locking the helmet in the up position.
Happel (US 2015/0264992 A1) teaches a helmet with a rotating mechanism that allows for locking between a down and up position via quick head motion wherein the locking mechanism is self-latching (e.g. ¶ 0078).
Koh (US 2015/0040292 A1) teaches a visor that has at its point of rotation a latch to lock the visor in desired position (¶ 0050).
Neal (US 2014/0260939 A1) teaches use of a self-locking latch on a helmet (¶ 0111).
Lebel (US 2012/0317706 A1) teaches a self-engaging latch for holding a face shield in desired position (¶ 0214).
Mullins (US 2016/0070109 A1) teaches a motor attached to a belt for rotating out of the way a display on an HMD using guide elements (¶ 0083 and Fig. 12B). Mullins demonstrates that using a motor and belt to actuate a display out of the user’s line of sight is nothing more than a prior art element.
Del Bon (US 5,571,217) teaches a helmet with a visor wherein a slip clutch is effectuated using lever members, a pressure spring, and positive engagement (col. 10, ll. 53–63).
Frownfelter (US 2016/0075218 A1) teaches a visor utilizing a slip clutch and a lifting assist spring to assist the lifting of an arm (e.g. ¶ 0007).
Satterfield (US 2015/0048230 A1) teaches a display actuated with a lifting arm that utilizes assist springs or other similar devices to help lift and lower the video arm with reduced force (¶ 0042).
Abri (US 2012/0267499 A1) teaches a lifting device using a spring or similar to compensate for the weight of the device in an operating room from a resting position to an operating position (¶ 0018).
Theis (US 2011/0278424 A1) teaches a torque spring used in rotatable joints of an arm that actuates a display (e.g. Figs. 1 and 3).
Zagaroff (US 2004/0026950 A1) teaches an assist spring for counterbalancing a truck’s tailgate and assisting with the lifting and lowering thereof (e.g. ¶ 0018).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL J. HESS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights