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 filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Regarding the "first headband" and "second headband", Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations of the claims are shown in the drawings…Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the objections to the drawings be withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner reminds the applicant that due to the inconsistencies between the as-filed claims and as-filed specification, it is unclear how a person having ordinary skill in the art would determine which disclosed structures correspond to the claimed elements because the specification does not expressly correlate the claimed elements. For example, the as-filed specification refers to “headbands 33 and 34,” but does not indicate which of these corresponds to the claimed “first headband” or “second headband.” Examiner invites the applicant to explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would determine the correspondence between the claimed elements and disclosed structures. Since the claims are replete with inconsistent terminology and lack of antecedent basis for several claimed elements, the Examiner has mapped the rejections following the exact formatting of the as-filed claims in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that " The specification objected to, as it was suggested that it fails to describe…Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations of the claims are described in the specification…Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the objections to the specification be withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to argument above. “The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005).”
In response to the applicant's argument that "The current language of claims 3 and 7 clearly define the claims to one of ordinary skill in the art as required by MPEP § 2173. First, claim 3 and 7 do not depend from one another and therefore do not have conflicting limitations…One of ordinary skill would understand the subject matter of claim 3 and 7, both alone and in view of Applicant's specification," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the issue is not whether claims depend from one another, but whether the limitations the claims introduce are consistent with the subject matter of Claim 1, the claim upon which Claims 3 and 7 depend on. The claims define mutually exclusive configurations of the head-mounted device support structure of Claim 1. See §§ 112(d) and 112(b) section below in the present Office action for further details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 22, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant's argument that "However, van Nortwick fails to disclose first and second fabric headbands, as recited in claim 1 as presently amended," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Claim 14 has been amended to include the same features as claim 1 and is patentable for at least similar reasons as claim 1. Claims 15-18 depend from claim 14 and are patentable at least because claim 14 is patentable. Rejoinder and allowance of claims 14-18 are respectfully requested…Claim 19 has been amended to include the same features as claim 1 and is patentable for at least similar reasons as claim 1. Rejoinder and allowance of claim 19 are respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. Claims 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03 October 2025. Examiner reminds the applicant that “In order to be eligible for rejoinder, a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim. A withdrawn claim that does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim will not be rejoined.” See § MPEP 821. See § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "first headband," "second headband," "first friction hinge portion," "second friction hinge portion," "'first' friction hinge portion," "rotating member," "stiff portion," and "rigid portion," must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification must describe every feature of the invention specified in the claims and drawings. Examiner notes that several elements claimed are not consistent with the language presented in the as-filed specification, for it is unclear which specific claimed elements map to certain features presented in the drawings. Since the claims are replete with inconsistent terminology and lack of antecedent basis for several claimed elements, the Examiner has mapped the rejections following the exact formatting of the as-filed claims in the present Office action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - 35 USC §§ 112(d) & 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 3 and 7 fail to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1 because both claims redefine the same friction hinge structure of the invention utilizing different elements of Claim 1. In other words, Claim 3, dependent on Claims 1 and 2, recites the first friction hinge portion as being part of the first headband, while Claim 7, dependent on Claim 1, recites the same first friction hinge portion as being part of the support member. Thus, Claims 3 and 7 reassign the same structure within recited elements of Claim 1 rather than further limiting the scope of the claims. Since the same friction hinge portion cannot simultaneously be part of both the first headband and the support member, the limitations cannot exist at the same time and therefore are mutually exclusive.
Since the scope cannot be ascertained, Claims 3-7 are also 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, regards as the invention.
Proper correction is required to ensure accuracy and consistency in the claims, for the language is so awkward that it renders the claims nearly incomprehensible. The primary purpose of the requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP 2173.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3-7 and 11 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.
With respect to Claims 3-7, See §§ 112(d) and 112(b) section above in the present Office action.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the" in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, for a rigid portion is not recited in neither Claim 11 nor the claim upon which it depends.
With respect to Claim 11, the term “stiff portion” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stiff portion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Stiffness is a matter of degree, so objective boundaries, comparison, and/or measurable parameters not being recited in the as-filed claims nor as-filed specification creates ambiguity. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of what constitutes the “stiff portion.” Since the scope of this limitation cannot be ascertained, the second headband, fabric portion, alleged “rigid portion” and support member are also rendered indefinite by the use of “stiff portion.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a head-mounted device support structure.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Nortwick et al. US 20210368904 A1 (herein after "van Nortwick") in view of Morita JP 2015132033 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 1, van Nortwick discloses a head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) configured to couple to a head-mounted device housing (frame assembly 40; [0035]), the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) comprising: a support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) coupled to the head-mounted device housing (support member 80 coupled to frame assembly 40 via helmet shell 42 and base portion 84; [0048]; fig. 5); a first headband (straps 96a, 96b; [0045]) removably attached (fig. 5 & 8) to the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]); and a second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) removably attached (fig. 4) to the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]), wherein the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) is configured to rotate (arms 69a, 69b rotating as sagittal fit of headband assembly 78 is adjusted through movement of support member 80; [0046]; rotating as seen in fig. 5-7) relative to the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]).
van Nortwick does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the first headband is a first fabric headband; and wherein the second headband is a second fabric headband.
However, in another field of endeavor, Morita teaches a hat interior attachment and hat ([0001]) wherein a first headband (second member 21; [0037]) and second headband (first member 20; [0037]), of a support member (headband 2; [0037]; fig. 1) within a headband assembly and support structure (rear member 13 is formed by connecting first member 20 and second member 21; [0034]), are made of a synthetic resin, such as polyethylene or polypropylene (front member 12 and the rear member 13 are made of same material as hammock 1; [0030]; hammock 1 is made of synthetic resin, such as polyethylene or polypropylene; [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the helmet and headband assembly of van Nortwick to include the technical feature of selecting a synthetic fabric material for the headbands, for the purpose of flexibility and achieving resistance to stretching and loss of rigidity even with repeated or long-term use, as taught by Morita ([0025]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 2, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 1, wherein the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) comprises a protrusion (see figures 5 and 8 of van Nortwick annotated by examiner below; see also fig. 9), and the first headband (straps 96a, 96b; [0045]) is attached to the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) at the protrusion ([0045]; see figures 5 and 8 of van Nortwick annotated by examiner below; see also fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
561
1629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
figures 5 and 8 of van Nortwick annotated by examiner
With respect to Claim 3, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 2, wherein the first headband (straps 96a, 96b; [0045]) comprises a first friction hinge portion (support member 82 hinged through fingers 94; [0044]), and the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) comprises a second friction hinge portion (helmet shell 42 hinged through fingers 94; [0044]) that is configured to engage (fingers 94 providing hinging relationship between helmet shell 42 and rear support member 82; [0044]) the first friction hinge portion (support member 82 hinged through fingers 94; [0044]) to removably attach (fig. 4) the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) to the first headband (straps 96a, 96b; [0045]; van Nortwick).
With respect to Claim 4, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 3, wherein the first and second friction hinge portions (support member 82 and helmet shell 42 hinged through fingers 94; [0044]) form a friction hinge (fingers 94 rotatably coupled to helmet shell 42 providing hinging relationship between helmet shell 42 and support member 82; [0044]), and the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) is configured to rotate (arms 69a, 69b rotating as sagittal fit of headband assembly 78 is adjusted through movement of support member 80; [0046]; rotating as seen in fig. 5-7) relative to the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) about the friction hinge (arms 69a, 69b extending outwardly from a body portion of the helmet shell 42; [0037]; van Nortwick).
With respect to Claim 5, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 4, wherein the friction hinge (fingers 94 rotatably coupled to helmet shell 42 providing hinging relationship between helmet shell 42 and support member 82; [0044]) comprises recesses and protruding features (one or more fingers 94 extending/protruding from support member 82 and coupled/recessed to helmet shell 42; [0044] through second end 48; [0035]) that fit into the recesses (openings 60a, 60b of second end 48; [0035]; fig. 3 & 10), and the friction hinge (fingers 94 rotatably coupled to helmet shell 42 providing hinging relationship between helmet shell 42 and support member 82; [0044]) is configured to lock into place (fingers 94 rotatably coupled to the helmet shell 42 and permitting hinging; [0044]) when at least some of the protruding features enter at least some of the recesses (one or more fingers 94 extending/protruding from support member 82 enter openings 60a, 60b; as seen in fig. 3; [0035], [0044]; van Nortwick).
With respect to Claim 6, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 3, wherein the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) further comprises a rotating member (circumferential actuation member 120; [0052]; van Nortwick).
van Nortwick does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the protrusion is mounted on the rotating member, and the first headband is configured to rotate relative to the support member when the rotating member rotates.
However, in another field of endeavor, Morita teaches a hat interior attachment and hat ([0001]), wherein a protrusion is mounted (mounting portion 30; [0038]) onto a rotating member (second member main body portion 31; [0038]), and a first headband (second member 21; [0037]) and second headband (first member 20; [0037]) are connected to each other so as to be freely rotatable ([0037]), relative to a support member (headband 2; [0037]; fig. 1) when the rotating member rotates (body portion 31 moves via hinge portion 29; [0038] arrow B rotating portion 31 as seen in fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the helmet and headband assembly of van Nortwick to combine the technical features of comprising a rotating member with headbands rotating with respect to a support structure and rotating member, for the purpose of ensuring that the circumferential length of the headband assembly can be adjusted and the assembly maintains stability both when in use and not in use, as taught by Morita ([0016-17], [0037], & [0039]).
With respect to Claim 7, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 1, wherein the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) comprises a first friction hinge portion (leg portion 86 hinged through projection 92; [0044]), and the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) comprises a second friction hinge portion (helmet shell 42 hinged through fingers 94; [0044]) that is configured to engage (leg portion 86 of support member 80 comprises projection 92 extending into the slot 90, wherein projection 92 is part of a fastener that couples the leg portion 86 to helmet shell 42; [0041]) the first friction hinge portion (leg portion 86 hinged through projection 92; [0044]) to removably attach (fig. 5-7) the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) to the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]).
With respect to Claim 8, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 1, wherein the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) comprises a recess (flange 164 defining an aperture 166; [0058]) and a rotating member (sagittal actuation member 102 rotatable about an actuation axis AX and is rotatably coupled; [0046]) in the recess (receiving at least a portion of the sagittal actuation member 102; [0058]; van Nortwick).
van Nortwick does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein the second headband is coupled to the rotating member, and the second headband is configured to rotate relative to the support member as the rotating member rotates in the recess.
However, in another field of endeavor, Morita teaches a hat interior attachment and hat ([0001]), wherein a second headband (first member 20; [0037]) is coupled to a rotating member (screw 28; [0037]), and a first headband (second member 21; [0037]) and second headband (first member 20; [0037]) are connected to each other so as to be freely rotatable ([0037]), relative to a support member (headband 2; [0037]; fig. 1) when the rotating member (screw 28; [0037]) rotates in a recess (connection hole 25; [0037]; fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the helmet and headband assembly of van Nortwick to combine the technical features of comprising a rotating member with headbands rotating with respect to a support structure and rotating member, for the purpose of ensuring that the circumferential length of the headband assembly can be adjusted and the assembly maintains stability both when in use and not in use, as taught by Morita ([0016-17], [0037], & [0039]).
With respect to Claim 9, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]; van Nortwick) of claim 1.
van Nortwick does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the first headband is configured to rotate relative to the support member.
However, in another field of endeavor, Morita teaches a hat interior attachment and hat ([0001]), wherein a first headband (second member 21; [0037]) and second headband (first member 20; [0037]) are connected to each other so as to be freely rotatable ([0037]), relative to a support member (headband 2; [0037]; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the helmet and headband assembly of van Nortwick to include the technical features of comprising headbands rotating with respect to a support structure, for the purpose of ensuring that the circumferential length of the headband assembly can be adjusted and providing headwear that can be worn in a stable state regardless of the size of the wearer's head, as taught by Morita ([0016] & [0037]).
With respect to Claim 10, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 1, wherein the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) comprises an attachment (top beam 68; [0037]; fig. 2) in an opening (as seen in fig. 2), the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) is configured to attach (as seen in fig. 2 & 5) to the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]) at the attachment (top beam 68; [0037]; fig. 2; van Nortwick).
van Nortwick does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the attachment is configured to slide within the opening.
However, in another field of endeavor, Morita teaches a hat interior attachment and hat ([0001]), wherein a headband assembly and support structure (headband 2; [0030]) comprise a first headband (second member 21; [0037]) and second headband (first member 20; [0037]) are connected to each other (rear member 13 is formed by connecting first member 20 and second member 21; [0034]; headband 2 includes a front member 12 and a rear member 13 connected to the front member 12; [0030]), and an attachment (pair of lower front head side attachment pieces 17; [0033] & [0052]) is configured to slide (movable in the front-rear direction i.e., the left-right direction in fig. 12) and the left-right direction; [0033]) within an opening (opening that forms hammock 1 as seen in fig. 1, 5, 10, & 12) of the headband assembly and support structure (headband 2; [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the helmet and headband assembly of van Nortwick to include the technical features of comprising headbands with attachments that linearly move within a spacing of a headband assembly structure, for the purpose of providing headwear that can be worn in a stable state regardless of the size of the wearer's head and ensuring the assembly maintains stability both when in use and not in use, as taught by Morita ([0016-17] & [0033]).
With respect to Claim 11, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 1, wherein the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) comprises a stiff portion (arms 69a, 69b to provide additional attachment points for rigidity; [0037]) and a fabric portion (surgical fabric 34 of surgical garment 32 covering headband assembly 78 inclusive of arms 69a, 69b; [0032]; fig. 1), and the rigid portion is configured to be attached (additional attachment points for rigidity; [0037]; fig. 5-7) to the support member (support member 80 of headband assembly 78; [0040]; van Nortwick).
With respect to Claim 12, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]) of claim 11, wherein the second headband (arms 69a, 69b; [0037]) further comprises a stiffener (face shield 36 of surgical fabric 34 and surgical garment 32 constructed from polycarbonate; [0033]; fig. 1) in the fabric portion (surgical fabric 34 or surgical garment 32 covering headband assembly 78 inclusive of arms 69a, 69b; [0032]; fig. 1; van Nortwick).
With respect to Claim 13, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]; van Nortwick) of claim 1.
van Nortwick does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the second headband comprises rigid material.
However, in another field of endeavor, Morita teaches a hat interior attachment and hat ([0001]), a first headband (second member 21; [0037]) and second headband (first member 20; [0037]) of a rear portion of the headband assembly and support structure (rear member 13 is formed by connecting first member 20 and second member 21; [0034]; headband 2 can be formed to have high rigidity; [0078]) are made of rigid material (front member 12 and the rear member 13 are made of same material as hammock 1; [0030]; hammock 1 is made of synthetic resin, such as polyethylene or polypropylene, which has rigidity; [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the helmet and headband assembly of van Nortwick to include the technical feature of selecting a rigid material for the headbands, for the purpose of achieving resistance to stretching and loss of rigidity even with repeated or long-term use, as taught by Morita ([0025]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Nortwick et al. US 20210368904 A1 (herein after "van Nortwick") in view of Morita JP 2015132033 A (see machine translation) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dunn et al. US 20210085908 A1 (herein after "Dunn").
With respect to Claim 22, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure (surgical helmet assembly 30; [0031]; van Nortwick) of claim 1, the first fabric headband, and the second fabric headband (straps 96a, 96b and arms 69a, 69b of van Nortwick; [0037], [0045]; in view of second member 21 and first member 20 of Morita made of synthetic resin, such as polyethylene or polypropylene; [0025], [0037]).
van Nortwick in view of Morita does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the first fabric headband comprises a flat knit fabric, and the second fabric headband comprises a woven fabric.
However, in another field of endeavor, Dunn discloses manufactured to shape headgear and masks ([0005-8]) wherein a headband assembly (headgear 520; [0122-123]; fig. 5-1) comprises a first and second fabric headband (upper headgear straps 530; [0123], front and rear straps as seen in fig. 5-1) including spacer fabric material ([0148]; fig. 20). The spacer fabric construction ([0148]) comprises flat knit fabric (spacer fabrics formed by flat knitting; [0138]) and woven fabric properties (spacer fabric defined as textile having upper ground structure, lower ground structure, and traversing yarn woven between the ground structures, formed from fabric, to form matrix like textile; [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the helmet and headband assembly of van Nortwick in view of Morita to include the technical feature of selecting a spacer fabric material comprising flat knit and/or woven fabric properties, for the purpose of providing more cushioning, breathability, moisture management, comfort, aesthetic appeal, and overall desirability within headgear, as taught by Dunn ([0148]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 23, van Nortwick in view of Morita teaches the head-mounted device support structure of claim 1, the first fabric headband, and the second fabric headband (straps 96a, 96b and arms 69a, 69b of van Nortwick; [0037], [0045]; in view of second member 21 and first member 20 of Morita made of synthetic resin, such as polyethylene or polypropylene; [0025], [0037]).
van Nortwick in view of Morita does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s):wherein the first fabric headband and the second fabric headband comprise flat knit fabric.
However, in another field of endeavor, Dunn discloses manufactured to shape headgear and masks ([0005-8]) wherein a headband assembly (headgear 520; [0122-123]; fig. 5-1) comprises a first and second fabric headband (upper headgear straps 530; [0123], front and rear straps as seen in fig. 5-1) including spacer fabric material ([0148]; fig. 20). The spacer fabric construction ([0148]) comprises flat knit fabric (spacer fabrics formed by flat knitting; [0138]) and woven fabric properties (spacer fabric defined as textile having upper ground structure, lower ground structure, and traversing yarn woven between the ground structures, formed from fabric, to form matrix like textile; [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the helmet and headband assembly of van Nortwick in view of Morita to include the technical feature of selecting a spacer fabric material comprising flat knit and/or woven fabric properties, for the purpose of providing more cushioning, breathability, moisture management, comfort, aesthetic appeal, and overall desirability within headgear, as taught by Dunn ([0148]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 07 March 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872