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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection addresses the argument by citing new prior art pertinent to the amended features for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Mack teaches first and second fabric layers (top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18 in figure 5), and wherein the fabric layers surround the elastomeric layer (the fill material 44 is surrounded by the top fabric section 16 and the bottom fabric section 18 in figure 5; note: the fill material 44 is also interposed between the top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18). Mack’s teaching of the first and second fabric layers surrounding the elastomeric layer could be easily incorporated into Hatfield or Kiritz. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to seal the elastomeric layer from access by the user...([Paragraph 008] of Mack).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield et al (US 11762421 B2; hereinafter “Hatfield”) in view of Adams et al (US 20140159995 A1; hereinafter “Adams”) and further in view of Mack et al (US 20200288891 A1; hereinafter “Mack”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatfield teaches a head-mounted device (100 in figure 1A), comprising:
a housing (114 in figure 1A);
a display (110 in figure 1A) in the housing (114); and
a light seal (130 in figure 1A) coupled to the housing (the facial interface 130 is coupled to the display unit 110 in figure 1A), wherein the light seal (130) comprises an elastomeric layer and a first fabric layer, and the elastomeric layer ([Column 7 Lines 6-12] “The outer cover 432 is formed of one or more materials (e.g., layers) that are compliant to the shape of the face of the user (e.g., being flexible and/or compressible) and otherwise being suitable for engagement with the face of the user. The outer cover 432 may include one or more layers of material, such a woven textile, a molded or extruded polymer, foam, or combination thereof.”)
Hatfield does not teach multiple perforations.
However, Adams teaches multiple perforations ([Paragraph 0045] “FIGS. 4-6 illustrate a temple arm 400 in a preloaded position 400a having a perforation pattern openings 401 and loaded position 400b when the perforation pattern openings 401 are closed. Temple arm 400 is similar to temple arm 300 in having interface material 301 and compression material 302.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the multiple perforations into Hatfield, as taught by Adams. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to allow the fabric to be partially stretchable…([Paragraph 0045] of Adams).
Hatfield in view of Adams does not explicitly teach a second fabric layer; and wherein the elastomeric layer is interposed between the first and second fabric layers.
Note: Hatfield establishes the combination of fabric (woven textile) and the flexible element (polymer or foam) designed for interface with the user’s head (see at least col. 7, lines 1-16). How these multiple layers are arranged or attached to one another is unknown so one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to seek suitable arrangements to cure this deficiency.
Mack teaches wherein an elastomeric layer (44 in figure 5; note analogous to foam/polymer of Hatfield as it cushions and interfaces with the users head) is interposed between the first and second fabric layers (top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18 in figure 5; note: fabric analogous to woven textile of Hatfield).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate wherein the elastomeric layer is interposed between the first and second fabric layers into Hatfield, as taught by Mack. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to seal the elastomeric layer from access by the user...([Paragraph 008] of Mack).
Further, as noted above, the choice to incorporate the cushioning element between fabric layers appears as no more than the section of an art-recognized arrangement suitable for the intended use (MPEP §2144.07) of Hatfield of applying a soft member with fabric to a user’s head.
Regarding Claim 2, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, Hatfield further teaches wherein the elastomeric layer (432 in figure 4A) comprises thermoplastic polyurethane ([Column 7 Lines 10-12] “The outer cover 432 may include one or more layers of material, such a woven textile, a molded or extruded polymer, foam, or combination thereof.” A thermoplastic polyurethane is an extrudable or moldable polymer.).
Regarding Claim 3, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, Hatfield in view of Adams further teach wherein the multiple perforations (the perforation pattern openings 401 of Adams) are staggered in a brick pattern (the perforation pattern openings 401 are staggered in a brick pattern in figures 5 and 6 of Adams) across the elastomeric layer (432 in figure 4A).
Regarding Claim 4, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 3, Hatfield in view of Adams further teach wherein the multiple perforations comprise slits (the perforation pattern openings 401 comprise slits in figure 6 of Adams).
Regarding Claim 5, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 3, Hatfield in view of Adams substantially teach all the limitations of the claim except for wherein the multiple perforations comprise three-part openings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the multiple perforations comprise three-part openings, since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to make the fabric more stretchable against the user’s face.
Regarding Claim 6, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 3, Hatfield in view of Adams further teach wherein the multiple perforations comprise slits (the perforation pattern openings 401 comprise slits in figure 6 of Adams).
Hatfield in view of Adams substantially teach all the limitations of the claim except for wherein the multiple perforations comprise three-part openings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the multiple perforations comprise three-part openings, since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to control the stretch of the fabric against the user’s face.
Regarding Claim 8, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, Hatfield and Mack further teach wherein the first and second fabric layers (top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18 in figure 5 of Mack; note: fabric analogous to woven textile of Hatfield) surround the elastomeric layer (44 in figure 5 of Mack; note analogous to foam/polymer of Hatfield as it cushions and interfaces with the users head) without attaching to the elastomeric layer (top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18 surround the fill material 44 without attaching to it in figure 5 of Mack).
Regarding Claim 9, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, Hatfield further teaches wherein the light seal (530 in figure 5B) further comprises a structural frame (534 in figure 5B) that is coupled to the elastomeric layer and to the first fabric layer (the internal force distributor 534 is coupled both to the extruded polymer and fabric covering of the outer cover 432 in figure 5B).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield et al (US 11762421 B2; hereinafter “Hatfield”), Adams et al (US 20140159995 A1; hereinafter “Adams”), and Mack et al (US 20200288891 A1; hereinafter “Mack”) in view of Kiritz et al (US 20200159040 A1; hereinafter “Kiritz”).
Regarding Claim 7, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, except wherein the elastomeric layer has a periphery, and the first fabric layer is coupled to the elastomeric layer at the periphery.
However, Kiritz teaches wherein the elastomeric layer (2 in figure 1) has a periphery (the inner body 2 has a periphery in figure 1), and the first fabric layer (3 in figure 1) is coupled to the elastomeric layer (2) at the periphery (the outer body 3 is coupled to the inner body 2 at the periphery in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate wherein the elastomeric layer has a periphery, and the first fabric layer is coupled to the elastomeric layer at the periphery into Hatfield, as taught by Kiritz. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be make the light seal block out more light while still being comfortable for the user…([Paragraph 0031] of Kiritz).
Regarding Claim 16, Hatfield in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, except wherein the light seal further comprises foam on a surface of the fabric.
However, Kiritz teaches wherein the light seal further comprises foam on a surface of the fabric ([Paragraph 0031] “Another embodiment of the nose piece 1 may include a single piece of low density of silicone foam. The low density silicone foam allows enough cushion and support for the VR headset and HMD.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate wherein the light seal further comprises foam on a surface of the fabric into Hatfield, as taught by Kiritz. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to make the light seal more comfortable for the user…([Paragraph 0031] of Kiritz).
Claim(s) 19-21 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiritz et al (US 20200159040 A1; hereinafter “Kiritz”) in view of Adams et al (US 20140159995 A1; hereinafter “Adams”) and further in view of Mack et al (US 20200288891 A1; hereinafter “Mack”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kiritz teaches a head-mounted device (10 in figure 11), comprising:
a housing (18 in figure 11);
a display (19 in figure 11) in the housing (18); and
a nosepiece (1 in figure 14) coupled to the housing (18) and configured to shield light ([Paragraph 0044] “The face conforming structure 20 also prevents leakage of external light into the VR headset and HMD 10, which would break the immersion of the VR experience.” and [Paragraph 0046] “The nose piece 1 may also be integrated to the face conforming structure 20 such that the face conforming structure 20 and nose piece 1 are unitary and monolithic such that the face conforming structure 20 and the nose piece 1 may be casted as a single piece.”), wherein the nosepiece (1) comprises an elastomeric layer ([Paragraph 0031] “In an exemplary embodiment, the nose piece 1 may comprise a silicone material inner body 2 made of out low density silicone foam. An outer body 3 may comprise a harder silicone foam.”).
Kiritz does not teach a plurality of perforations.
However, Adams teaches a plurality of perforations ([Paragraph 0045] “FIGS. 4-6 illustrate a temple arm 400 in a preloaded position 400a having a perforation pattern openings 401 and loaded position 400b when the perforation pattern openings 401 are closed. Temple arm 400 is similar to temple arm 300 in having interface material 301 and compression material 302.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the plurality of perforations into Kiritz, as taught by Adams. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to allow the fabric to be partially stretchable…([Paragraph 0045] of Adams).
Kiritz in view of Adams does not teach a fabric that covers the elastomeric layer, wherein the fabric comprises first and second fabric layers, and the elastomeric layer is surrounded by the first and second fabric layers.
Note: Kiritz establishes the nosepiece (1) and the elastomeric layer (silicone material inner body 2) designed to interface with the user’s nose and face (see at least Paragraph 0044). Since the nosepiece and face conforming structure come into contact with the sensitive skin of the user’s face and nose, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to seek new ways to make that contact more comfortable.
Mack teaches a fabric (top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18 in figure 5) that covers the elastomeric layer (the fill material 44 in figure 5; note analogous to silicone material inner body 2 of Kiritz as it cushions the users nose), wherein the fabric comprises first and second fabric layers (top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18), and the elastomeric layer is surrounded by the first and second fabric layers (the fill material 44 is surrounded by the top fabric section 16 and the bottom fabric section 18 in figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a fabric that covers the elastomeric layer, wherein the fabric comprises first and second fabric layers, and the elastomeric layer is surrounded by the first and second fabric layers into Kiritz, as taught by Mack. The suggestion/motivation to do so would be to seal the elastomeric layer from access by the user...([Paragraph 008] of Mack).
Regarding Claim 20, Kiritz in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 19, Kiritz in view of Adams further teach wherein the elastomeric layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: thermoplastic polyurethane, nitrile butadiene rubber, and silicone ([Paragraph 0031] “ The nose piece may be made from any suitable material such as, but not limited to, silicone, rubber, foam, elastic, Velcro, conductive fabric and conductive thread and fabric or cloth of all types or , rubber, foam, or any elastic material.” Of Kiritz), and wherein the plurality of perforations (401 in figure 6 of Adams) are staggered in a brick pattern across a surface of the elastomeric layer (the perforation pattern openings 401 are staggered in a brick pattern in figure 6 of Adams).
Regarding Claim 21, Kiritz in view of Adams and Mack teach the head-mounted device defined in claim 19, wherein the nosepiece (1 in figure 2) further comprises a structural frame (40 in figure 2) that is coupled to the elastomeric layer ([Paragraph 0034] “The bridge portion 40 is the middle portion of the nose piece 1, and is configured to rest on the bridge of the user's nose. The bridge portion may be made of a different material or processed differently such that the material is harder than the wing portions 41.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15, and 17-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the head-mounted device of Claim 10, in particular, wherein the light seal further comprises a semi-rigid member that overlaps a portion of the first fabric layer and supports the elastomeric
layer.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the head-mounted device of Claim 11, in particular, wherein the light seal further comprises a service loop, the first fabric layer covers the service loop, and the service loop is adjustable to adjust the light seal.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the head-mounted device of Claim 12, in particular, wherein the light seal further comprises a deformable stiffener, and the deformable stiffener is adjustable to adjust the light
seal.
Claims 13-14 are dependent on Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the head-mounted device of Claim 15, in particular, wherein the light seal further comprises foam interposed between the elastomeric layer and the first fabric layer.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art does not suggest the combination of the head-mounted device of Claim 17, in particular, wherein the foam is segmented across the surface of the first fabric layer.
Regarding Claim 18 the prior art does not suggest the combination of the head-mounted device of Claim 18, in particular, wherein the light seal further comprises a deformable stiffener on the foam, and the foam is interposed between the deformable stiffener and the surface of the first fabric layer.
Claims 22 and 24-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Reference Kiritz et al (US 20200159040 A1) teaches a head-mounted device (10 in figure 1), comprising: a housing (18 in figure 11), display (19 in figure 11), a light shielding nosepiece (1 in figure 14) that comprises an elastomeric layer (a silicone material inner body 2 [Paragraph 0031]). Kiritz does not teach first and second fabric layers that surround the elastomeric layer without attaching to the elastomeric layer. However, Mack teaches first and second fabric layers (top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18 in figure 5) that surround the elastomeric layer (fill material 44 in figure 5) without attaching to the elastomeric layer (top fabric section 16 and bottom fabric section 18 surround the fill material 44 without attaching to it in figure 5).
However, Kiritz in view of Mack does not teach wherein wherein the first and second fabric layers are bonded together and surround the elastomeric layer.
Therefore, in examiners opinion the pertinent prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting all of the elements and features of the claimed inventions as arranged, disposed or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant without being hindsight reasoning.
Upon conclusion of a search of the prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding Claims 22 and 24-25, the prior art does not suggest the head mounted device of Claim 22, in particular, comprising: a housing;
a display in the housing; and
a light-shielding nosepiece comprising first and second fabric layers and an elastomeric layer between the first and second fabric layers, wherein the first and second fabric layers are bonded together and surround the elastomeric layer without attaching to the elastomeric layer.
Conclusion
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 DAKOTA MICHAEL TALBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-4673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/DAKOTA M TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights