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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on July 25, 2025 has been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0009] “FIG. 1” should read “FIGS 1A and 1B”
[0035] “…aft away for…” should read “…aft away from…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, claims 1, 14, and 20 recite the limitation “…the actuating mechanism defines a spatial distance between a surface of the facial interface bracket and a surface of the extender bracket.” It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted. Does the spatial distance defined by the actuating mechanism refer to the physical spacing between the facial interface bracket and extender bracket, the actuating mechanism physically separating the facial interface bracket and extender bracket, a distance related to depth adjustment of facial interface bracket, or some other distance? Since it is unclear how “…the actuating mechanism defines a spatial distance between a surface of the facial interface bracket and a surface of the extender bracket” should be interpreted, the limitation is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret any distance between the facial interface bracket and extender bracket as satisfying this limitation.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 inherit indefiniteness from claims 1 and 14.
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 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18736302 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 3 of Application No. 18736302 discloses a facial interface bracket (claim 1 facial-interface portion), an extender bracket (claim 1 adjustment assembly) coupled to a head display device (claim 1 head-wearable device) and the facial interface bracket (claim 1 adjustment assembly coupled to lens system of head-wearable device and facial-interface portion); and
an actuating mechanism (claim 3 actuator) coupled to at least one of the facial interface bracket and the extender bracket (claim 3 actuator is coupled to adjustment assembly), where in the actuating mechanism define a spatial distance between a surface of the facial interface bracket and a surface of the extender bracket (claim 3 actuator sets distance between facial-interface portion and adjustment assembly). Regarding claim 7, Application No. 19736302 discloses a button for actuating the actuating mechanism (claim 1 button).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because t patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatfield et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0044153 – hereinafter referred to as “Hatfield”).
Regarding claim 1, Hatfield teaches a device (Figure 3 headset 300 [0051]) comprising: a facial interface bracket (Figure 3 bridge 302 [0052]) configured to engage a user;
an extender bracket (Figure 6 extension bar 346 [0058]) coupled to a head display device (Figure 6 headset 300) and the facial interface bracket (Figure 6 bridge 302 [0058] extension bar 346 coupled to headset 300 and bridge 302); and
an actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316, [0052]) coupled to at least one of the facial interface bracket and the extender bracket ([0052] adjustable mechanisms 314,316 coupled to bridge 302), where in the actuating mechanism define a spatial distance between a surface of the facial interface bracket and a surface of the extender bracket (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316 define a spatial distance between bridge 302 and extension bar 346 [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches the actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316) comprises a plug-and-groove interface (Figure 9 wheel 336 of adjustable mechanism 314 has teeth 900 (“plug”) and extension bar 346 has track 904 with indents (“groove”) [0059]; Figure 10 tooth 1006 (“plug”) and indent of track 1002 (“groove”), [0064])).
Regarding claim 3, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches the actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316) comprises a slider (Figure 9 track 904 is a slider since it performs extension and retraction of temples 304,306 [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches the actuating mechanism comprises a cantilever (Figure 10 slider 1000, [0063] slider 1000 is a cantilever since is fixed to bridge 302 on one end and engages track 1002 at the other end).
Regarding claim 5, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches the actuating mechanism comprises a biased latch (Figure 9 spring-loaded locking mechanism 914 is a biased latch [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches comprising a locking insert on the extender bracket (Figure 10 rotatable lock 1008 is on extension bar 346 (coupled to extension bar 346 through slider 1000) [0065])).
Regarding claim 7, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches a button for actuating the actuating mechanism ([0061] wheel 336 with spring-loading locking mechanism 914 acts as a button since pressing the wheel locks/unlocks mechanism).
Regarding claim 8, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches the actuating mechanism comprises one or both of an elastic material or a flexible material (Figure 9 spring-loaded lock 914 has a spring [0061]).
Regarding claim 9, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches an alignment fixture on the facial interface bracket ([0059] anchor 906 has hole that extension bar 346 slides through).
Regarding claim 10, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches a latch housing on the facial interface bracket (Figure 8 bridge 302 is a latch housing since it encloses adjusting mechanisms 314,316 which are/have latches).
Regarding claim 11, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches a biased spring latch on the extender bracket (Figure 9 spring-loaded locking mechanism 914 is a biased spring latch and is on extension bar 346 [0061]).
Regarding claim 13, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches a plurality of grooves on the extender bracket (Figure 9 extension bar 346 has track 904 with indents (“grooves”) [0059]).
Regarding claim 14, Hatfield teaches a method for manufacturing a device (Figure 3 headset 300 [0051]), the method comprising:
providing a facial interface bracket (Figure 3 bridge 302 [0052]) configured to engage a user;
coupling an extender bracket (Figure 6 extension bar 346 [0058]) to a head display device (Figure 6 headset 300) and the facial interface bracket (Figure 6 bridge 302 [0058] extension bar 346 coupled to headset 300 and bridge 302);
coupling an actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316, [0052]) to at least one of the facial interface bracket and the extender bracket ([0052] adjustable mechanisms 314,316 coupled to bridge 302), wherein the actuating mechanism defines a spatial distance between a surface of the facial interface bracket and a surface of the extender bracket Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316 define a spatial distance between bridge 302 and extension bar 346 [0052]);
adjusting the actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316) to set the desired distance between the facial interface bracket and the extender bracket ([0055]-[0056] and [0058] adjustable mechanisms 314,316 set desired distance between bridge 302 and extension bracket 346); and
securing the actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316) to maintain the set distance between the facial interface bracket and the extender bracket ([0003] locking mechanism locks adjustable mechanism to set arrangement of the temples with respect to the bridge).
Regarding claim 15, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 14. Hatfield further teaches the actuating mechanism comprises a plug-and-groove interface (Figure 9 wheel 336 of adjustable mechanism 314 has teeth 900 (“plug”) and extension bar 346 has track 904 with indents (“groove’) [0059]; Figure 10 tooth 1006 (“plug”) and indent of track 1002 (“groove”), [0064])).
Regarding claim 16, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 14. Hatfield further teaches the actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316) comprises a slider (Figure 9 track 904 is a slider since it performs extension and retraction of temples 304,306 [0059]).
Regarding claim 17, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 14. Hatfield further teaches the actuating mechanism comprises a cantilever (Figure 10 slider 1000, [0063] slider 1000 is a cantilever since is fixed to bridge 302 on one end and engages track 1002 at the other end).
Regarding claim 18, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 14. Hatfield further teaches providing a locking insert on the extender bracket (Figure 10 rotatable lock 1008 is on extension bar 346 (coupled to extension bar 346 through slider 1000) [0065])).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0044153).
Regarding claim 12, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Hatfield further teaches a plurality of grooves on the extender bracket (Figure 9 extension bar 346 has track 904 with indents (“grooves”) [0059]) but fails to teach a plurality of grooves on the facial interface bracket. However, Hatfield teaches that components can be reversed between the temple and bridge. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the grooves taught by Hatfield such that they are on the facial interface bracket as the location of the groove and the adjusting mechanism is a matter of design choice ([0062]).
Regarding claim 19, Hatfield teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 14. Hatfield further teaches providing an orifice for displaying numerical indicators (Figure 6 orifice with wheel 334 display numbers to indicate position, [0057]) but fails to teach the orifice on the extender bracket. However, Hatfield teaches that components can be reversed between the temple and bridge. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange orifice taught by Hatfield such that it is on the extender bracket as the location of the orifice and the adjusting mechanism is a matter of design choice ([0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Hatfield teaches a device (Figure 3 headset 300 [0051]) comprising: a facial interface bracket (Figure 3 bridge 302 [0052]) configured to engage a user;
an extender bracket (Figure 6 extension bar 346 [0058]) coupled to a head display device (Figure 6 headset 300) and the facial interface bracket (Figure 6 bridge 302 [0058] extension bar 346 coupled to headset 300 and bridge 302); and an actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316, [0052]) coupled to at least one of the facial interface bracket and the extender bracket ([0052] adjustable mechanisms 314,316 coupled to bridge 302);
wherein the actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316) defines a spatial distance between a surface of the facial interface bracket and a surface of the extender bracket (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316 define a spatial distance between bridge 302 and extension bar 346 [0052]);
wherein the actuating mechanism (Figure 3 adjustable mechanisms 314,316) comprises a plug-and-groove interface (Figure 10 tooth 1006 and indents of track 1002 are a plug-and-groove interface, [0064], a slider (Figure 10 mechanism comprising slider 1000 with tooth 1001 are a slider, [0063]), and a cantilever (Figure 10 slider 1000, [0063] slider 1000 is a cantilever since is fixed to bridge 302 on one end and engages track 1002 at the other end);
Hatfield fails to teach the cantilever is actuated by pressing a button; and wherein the cantilever flexes along a portion coupled to the surface of the extender bracket when the button is pressed in the implementation shown in Figure 10. However, Hatfield teaches in the implementation shown in Figure 9 using a button to actuate the mechanism (([0061] wheel 336 with spring-loading locking mechanism 914 acts as a button since pressing the wheel locks/unlocks mechanism). Hatfield further teaches using a button to lock and unlock the actuating mechanism ([0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuating mechanism taught by Hatfield in the implementation of Figure 10 by adding a button as taught by Hatfield in the implementation shown in Figure 9 in order to lock and unlock the actuating mechanism ([0061]) and furthermore buttons a well-known mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishioka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0255764) teaches a actuating mechanism for adjusting a head strap of a head mounted device using mechanism similar to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872