DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/433,314 filed on February 5, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-11 and 14-20 in the reply filed on April 21, 2026 is acknowledged. Thus claims 1-20 are pending of which 1-11 and 14-20 are under examination and claims 12-13 are withdrawn as non-elected.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on February 5, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schutzberg et al. WO 2023/044274 A1 (hereafter Schutzberg).
The applied reference, Schutzberg1, may or may not have a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
However, although reference Schutzberg could be excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 15, Schutzberg teaches (Figs. 1A,1B, and 6A, 6B or 7A,7B) “A head-mountable device (computer glasses 100) comprising:
a frame (the frame of display element 108);
an optically transparent window (paragraph [0048]: “The display element 108 can include optical properties, such as lenses for vision correction based on incoming light from the physical environment. Additionally or alternatively, the display element 108 can provide information as a display within a field of view of the user. The information can be provided… in addition to (e.g., overlaid with) a physical environment.”) secured to the frame (see Fig. 1);
a first securement arm (one of the left or right pair of support arms 602, 702 with arm tips 604,704 and other elements below) extending from the frame; and
a second securement arm (the other one of the left or right pair of support arms 602, 702 with arm tips 604,704 and other elements below) extending from the frame (see Figs. 1A and 1B), each of the first securement arm and the second securement arm comprising:
a first portion (support arms 102/602/702) coupled to the frame (see Fig. 1);
a second portion (arm tips 104/604/704);
a joint coupling the second portion to the first portion (Fig. 6 joint with pivot point 546 or Fig. 7B, the portion between 702 and the end of 704 that can curve inward from a widest position is a living joint);
a biasing member (spring 544 or wire 750 that has an adjustable bias see Figs. 7A-7B and paragraph [0074]) providing a force resisting a rotation of the second portion away from the frame (spring 544 resists being compressed by cam 642 and wire 750 resists being further bent by cam 742); and
an adjustment member (sliding cam 642 or 742) configured to adjust the force (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]: “a sliding cam 642 that when slide in a first direction applies a force to the swivel arm 543 to swing the arm tip 504 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 642 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the swivel arm 543), the spring 544 biases the arm tip 504 back into the retracted position…. The sliding cam 742 can slide in a first direction to bend the wire 750 to push the arm tip 704 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 742 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the arm tip 704, the natural shape of the wire 750 can bias the arm tip 704 back into the retracted position.” Thus the sliding cams adjust the configuration of the biasing members 544 and 750 and thus the force applied to the head of the wearer.).”
Regarding claim 18, Schutzberg teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15, wherein:
the joint comprises a living hinge (see Figs. 7A-7B, the joint between 702 and the tip of 704 is formed by the deformation of 704, not a pivot, and is thus a living hinge); and
the biasing member comprises a plate or a wire (wire 750) resisting an outward rotation of the second portion away from the frame (the arm tip 704 presses against the head of the user in the configuration of Fig. 7B thereby resisting an outward rotation of the second portion away from the frame).”
Claims 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee US 4,848,891 (hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches “A head-mountable device (col. 1 lines 6-7: “all types of eyewear”) comprising:
a frame (lens-carrying frontal frame 10);
an optically transparent window secured to the frame (the vision-correcting lenses col. 4 lines 64-66: “vision-correcting eyeglasses generally comprising a lens-carrying frontal frame 10”);
a first securement arm (one of the two temples swingably attached to the frame 10 see col. 4 lines 66-68) extending from the frame (see Fig. 1 and col. 4 lines 66-68); and
a second securement arm extending from the frame (the other one of the two temples), each of the first securement arm and the second securement arm comprising:
a first portion (front temple portions 16) coupled to the frame (see Fig. 1, 16 is coupled to 10 via hinge 14);
a second portion (rear temple portions 18);
a joint coupling the second portion to the first portion (col. 5 lines 15-19: “a flexible member 24, such as a flat spring shown in FIGS. 2-4, which structurally connects the juxtaposed ends of temple portions 16 and 18 in an articulated relationship.”);
a biasing member (flat spring 24) providing a force resisting a rotation of the second portion away from the frame (col. 5 lines 39-42: “The spring must exhibit sufficient strength and resiliency to withstand repetitious flexing of the rear temple portion 18 with respect to the relatively fixed front portion 16.”, and col. 6 lines 29-33: “The functions of the spring 28 are… to provide spring loading for biasing the rear temple portion to its relaxed or normal condition.” Given the construction shown in Figs. 1-4 spring 24 provides resiliency against outward rotation of 18 away from frame 10 further than the relaxed or substantial longitudinal alignment condition of Fig. 3); and
an adjustment member (hollow slide member 28) configured to adjust the force (e.g. col. 6 lines 3-6: “One function of the slide member 28 is to alternately flex and release the spring 24 either to increase or decrease the pressure exerted against the wearer's head by the rear temple portion 18.”).”
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15, further comprising:
wherein the adjustment member comprises a body (hollow slide member 28) selectively positioned along a length of one of the first portion or the second portion to adjust the force (e.g. col. 6 lines 14-24: When the slide 28 is moved rearwardly, as indicated by the arrow below the slide of FIG. 4, the outer slide wall 32 will override the cam surface 38 causing the spring 24 to flex as the rear temple portion 18 is cammed inwardly in the direction indicated by the arrow at the right side of FIG. 4. When the slide 28 is moved forwardly, the energy stored in the spring 24 is released. As a result, the rear temple portion 18 is swung into substantial alignment with the front temple portion 16; and, the thrust of the rear temple against the wearer's head is reduced or eliminated.”); and
a locking mechanism (slots 40 and dent or dimple 42) releasably securing the body in a selected position along the length (e.g. col. 7 lines 24-56: “Plural slots 40 vertically relieved in the outboard side of each forward temple portion 16 adjacent the end surface 20 selectively coact with a single dent or dimple 42 projecting inwardly adjacent the front end of the slide surface 32 to provide an adjustable detent between the slide 28 and the front temple portion 16… The force required to shift the slide member from one detented position to another is preferably made great enough to prevent accidental shifting, but light enough so a wearer of any age can quickly and easily digitally adjust the pressure exerted by the rear temple portion while the eyewear is in place on his head.”).”
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15, wherein:
the joint comprises a living hinge (24 is a living hinge in that the pivoting occurs by deformation of 24); and
the biasing member comprises a plate or a wire (flat spring 24 is a plate) resisting an outward rotation of the second portion away from the frame (col. 5 lines 39-42: “The spring must exhibit sufficient strength and resiliency to withstand repetitious flexing of the rear temple portion 18 with respect to the relatively fixed front portion 16.”, and col. 6 lines 29-33: “The functions of the spring 28 are… to provide spring loading for biasing the rear temple portion to its relaxed or normal condition.” Given the construction shown in Figs. 1-4 spring 24 provides resiliency against outward rotation of 18 away from frame 10 further than the relaxed or substantial longitudinal alignment condition of Fig. 3).”
Claims 1, 7, 15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tombelli US 2022/0326534 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tombelli teaches “A securement arm (one of the left or right temple arms which includes a rearwardly extending portion of the frame 110 and temple portions 112L or 112R) for a wearable device (electronic eyewear device 100), comprising:
a first portion (the rearward extension of frame 110);
a first electronic component (at least electronic subsystem 116) disposed in the first portion (see Figs. 1 and 6);
a joint (hinge assemblies 114L and 114R);
a second portion (temple portions 112L and 112R) coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Fig. 1);
a second electronic component (temple-based electronic subsystem 118) disposed in the second portion (see Figs. 1 and 6), the first electronic component electrically coupled to the second electronic component through the joint (e.g. paragraph [0018]: “a temple-based electronic subsystem 118L that is electrically coupled to frame-based electronic subsystem 116 by one or more electrical pathways 120L.” see e.g. Figs. 1 and 6);
a biasing member (spring 918) providing a biasing force resisting a movement of the second portion relative to the first portion (e.g. paragraph [0043]: “The steeper the slope of the upper cam profile, the more the spring is compressed per a given angular rotation, resulting in increased torque needed to rotate the temple portion relative to the frame via the hinge.” Thus the spring 918 provides a force resisting the rotation of the second portion away from any of the angular orientations at which the cam follower 912 rests in a depression of the cam 720, including resisting rotation of the second portion away from the frame); and
an adjustment member (cam 720 and cam follower 912) configured to adjust the biasing force (e.g. paragraph [0043]: “The steeper the slope of the upper cam profile, the more the spring is compressed per a given angular rotation, resulting in increased torque needed to rotate the temple portion relative to the frame via the hinge.” Thus the profile of the upper cam adjusts the force of the biasing member 918 during the rotation of the hinge.).”
Regarding claim 7, Tombelli teaches “A head-mountable device (electronic eyewear device 100) comprising the securement arm of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein:
the securement arm is a first securement arm (see Fig. 1, there are two temples); and
the head-mountable device further comprises a frame (the front portion of frame 110 that holds eyepieces 140) and a second securement arm (see Fig. 1, there are two temples), the first securement arm extending from the frame (see Fig. 1) and the second securement arm extending from the frame (see Fig. 1).”
Regarding claim 15, Tombelli teaches “A head-mountable device (electronic eyewear device 100) comprising:
a frame (the front portion of frame 110 that holds the eyepieces 140R and 140L);
an optically transparent window (140 paragraph [0020]: “right eye piece 140R and left eye piece 140L. In other examples, a unified eye piece can be used for both left and right eyes… the eye piece(s) of electronic eyewear device 100 can be transparent or semi-transparent”) secured to the frame (see Fig. 1);
a first securement arm (one of the left or right temple arms which includes a rearwardly extending portion of the frame 110 and temple portions 112L or 112R) extending from the frame (see Fig. 1); and
a second securement arm (the other one of the left or right temple arms which includes a rearwardly extending portion of the frame 110 and temple portions 112L or 112R) extending from the frame (see Fig. 1), each of the first securement arm and the second securement arm comprising:
a first portion coupled to the frame (the rearward extension of frame 110 which is monolithically coupled to the front of frame 110);
a second portion (temple portions 112L and 112R);
a joint (hinge assemblies 114L and 114R) coupling the second portion to the first portion (see Fig. 1);
a biasing member (spring 918) providing a force resisting a rotation of the second portion away from the frame (e.g. paragraph [0043]: “The steeper the slope of the upper cam profile, the more the spring is compressed per a given angular rotation, resulting in increased torque needed to rotate the temple portion relative to the frame via the hinge.” Thus the spring 918 provides a force resisting the rotation of the second portion away from any of the angular orientations at which the cam follower 912 rests in a depression of the cam 720, including resisting rotation of the second portion away from the frame); and
an adjustment member (cam 720 and cam follower 912) configured to adjust the force (e.g. paragraph [0043]: “The steeper the slope of the upper cam profile, the more the spring is compressed per a given angular rotation, resulting in increased torque needed to rotate the temple portion relative to the frame via the hinge.” Thus the profile of the upper cam adjusts the force of the biasing member 918 during the rotation of the hinge.).”
Regarding claim 17, Tombelli teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15, wherein:
the joint comprises a fixed pivot point (hinge axle 514) for rotation of the second portion relative to the first portion (see e.g. Fig. 6); and
the biasing member comprises a spring (spring 918) extending across the pivot point (spring 918 surrounds axle 514 and thus extends across it, for example, in the sense that each spiral thereof extends from one side of the axle 514 to the other side of the axle).”
Regarding claim 19, Tombelli teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15, further comprising a stop (one of stops 1018 or 1020 or chamfers 310 and 312) to limit inward rotation of the second portion towards the frame (paragraph [0041]: “a portion of cam surface 1010 that is traveled by follower 912 terminates at a first hard stop 1018 and at a second hard stop 1020 that define opposing ends of the range of rotation” Thus one of 1018 or 1020 limits the inward rotation of 112L/112R. Also paragraph [0022]: “Chamfers 310 and 312 may be configured to interface with each other when left temple portion 112L is rotated to the closed position as shown in FIG. 4.” Thus as shown in Fig. 4 chamfers 310 and 312 are a stop that limits inward rotation of 112L/122R.).”
Regarding claim 20, Tombelli teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 19, wherein:
an engagement of the second portion with the stop (Let the stop be frame chamfer 310. Temple chamfer 312 engages with 310, see paragraph [0022] and Fig. 4) defines a resting position of the second portion relative to the first portion (see paragraph [0022] and Fig. 4); and
the biasing member resists a movement of the second portion away from the resting position (The spring 918 provides a force resisting the rotation of the second portion away from any of the angular orientations at which the cam follower 912 rests in a depression of the cam 720, including resisting rotation of the second portion away from the resting position of Fig. 4).”
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haddick et al. US 2013/0127980 A1 (hereafter Haddick).
Regarding claim 15, Haddick teaches (Figs. 178-180) “A head-mountable device (paragraph [0833]: “eyewear”) comprising:
a frame (paragraph [0833]: “eyepiece” Fig. 180, specifically the frame portion thereof);
an optically transparent window secured to the frame (paragraph [0010] “The present disclosure relates to an augmented reality eyepiece” thus the lenses shown in the eyepiece of Fig. 180 are transparent.);
a first securement arm (one of the left and right ear horns 17802) extending from the frame (see Fig. 180 and paragraph [0833]: “In embodiments, the ear horn may comprise a portion of the earpiece of an eyepiece as shown in FIG. 180, or it may comprise the entire earpiece (not shown).”); and
a second securement arm (the other one of the left and right ear horns 17802) extending from the frame (see Fig. 180 and paragraph [0833]: “In embodiments, the ear horn may comprise a portion of the earpiece of an eyepiece as shown in FIG. 180, or it may comprise the entire earpiece (not shown).”), each of the first securement arm and the second securement arm comprising:
a first portion (three portions with two joints are shown in Figs. 178 and 179, let the portion closest to the frame be considered the first portion) coupled to the frame (see Fig. 180 and paragraph [0833]: “In embodiments, the ear horn may comprise a portion of the earpiece of an eyepiece as shown in FIG. 180, or it may comprise the entire earpiece (not shown).”);
a second portion (let the middle portion in Figs. 178 or 179 be the second portion);
a joint (paragraph [0833]: “joint”) coupling the second portion to the first portion (see Figs. 178 or 179 and paragraph [0833]: “two or more joints connecting members that may be bent to a curved shape”);
a biasing member (cable 17804 whose tension determines the rigidity of the ear horn) providing a force resisting a rotation of the second portion away from the frame (paragraph [0833]: “as the tension of the cable 17804 increases, the ear horn becomes more rigid or less relaxed to position to the user's head, and as the tension is released in the cable 17804, the ear horn becomes more flexible allowing one or both of ear horns to straighten and/or to fold flat.” Thus the cable in its shortened form resists rotation of the second portion away from the frame); and
an adjustment member (adjustor 17808) configured to adjust the force (paragraph [0833]: “The cable 17804 may be attached to and tightened via an adjustor 17808 whereby positioning the adjustor to increase tension in the cable 17804 causes the ear horn to bend or curve to shape to the user's head.”).”
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farnam US 2013/0100397 A1 (hereafter Farnam).
Regarding claim 15, Farnam teaches “A head-mountable device (eyewear 100) comprising:
a frame (frame 102);
an optically transparent window (eyepieces 104, which are optically transparent in that they allow the wearer to view a 3-D movie see e.g. paragraph [0007]) secured to the frame (see Fig. 2);
a first securement arm (one of the two temple pieces 106) extending from the frame (see Fig. 2); and
a second securement arm (the other of the two temple pieces 106) extending from the frame (see Fig. 2), each of the first securement arm and the second securement arm comprising:
a first portion (first temple portion 200) coupled to the frame (see Fig. 2);
a second portion (second temple portion 202);
a joint (the elements that pivotally couple 202 to 204) coupling the second portion to the first portion (see coupling in Figs. 4A and 4B);
a biasing member (the portion of 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206) providing a force resisting a rotation of the second portion away from the frame (paragraph [0060]: “deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed” thus 202 and any portion thereof acts as an elastic flat spring, resisting bending thereof, and thus resisting a rotation of the distal end 114 away from the frame); and
an adjustment member (guide feature 210) configured to adjust the force (the position of 210 along 200 adjusts the force against the wearer’s head as seen in Figs. 4A and 4B by changing the at rest position of distal end 214).”
Regarding claim 16, Farnam teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15, further comprising:
wherein the adjustment member comprises a body (guide feature 210) selectively positioned (e.g. paragraph [0057]: “Each of through-holes 214 are adapted to receive projection 216 such that eyewear 100 can be configured in a discrete number (five in this example) of fixed positions.”) along a length of one of the first portion or the second portion (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “a guide feature 204 that is adapted to slidably engage the upper and opposite lower edges of first temple piece 200.” which is positioning 204 along the first portion) to adjust the force (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “as second temple portion 202 advances toward frame 102 thereby urging second temple portion 202 inward.”); and
a locking mechanism (locking mechanisms 116) releasably securing the body in a selected position along the length (paragraph [0057]: “Each locking mechanisms 116 includes a plurality of through-holes 214… a complementary projection 216 … Each of through-holes 214 are adapted to receive projection 216 such that eyewear 100 can be configured in a discrete number (five in this example) of fixed positions… Flexible tab 218 facilitates the adjustment of temple piece 106 from one discrete fixed position to another.”).”
Regarding claim 18, Farnam teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15, wherein:
the joint comprises a living hinge (the joint between 200 and 202 is a living hinge in that it is integrally formed by the bending of 202); and
the biasing member comprises a plate or a wire (202 is a plate, as is any portion thereof) resisting an outward rotation of the second portion away from the frame (paragraph [0060]: “Those skilled in the art will recognize that the deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed and, therefore, will deflect back outward as projections 212 advance back toward the closed end of channel 210” Thus 202 resists movement away from its at rest position including outward rotation of the distal end 114 away from the frame.).”
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 1-2, 5-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schutzberg et al. WO 2023/044274 A1 (hereafter Schutzberg) in view of Yamamoto et al. US 2022/0035171 A1 (hereafter Yamamoto).
The applied reference, Schutzberg2 may or may not have a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
However, although subject matter disclosed in the reference Schutzberg could be excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 1, Schutzberg teaches (Figs. 1A,1B, and 6A, 6B or 7A,7B) “A securement arm (support arm 602, 702 with arm tip 604,704 and other elements below) for a wearable device (computer glasses 100), comprising:
a first portion (602 or 702 which is the second static portion, see claim 2);
a first electronic component disposed in the first portion (claim 2: “the second static portion housing an electronic component”);
a joint (Fig. 6 joint with pivot point 546 or Fig. 7B, the portion between 702 and the end of 704 that can curve inward from a widest position is a living joint);
a second portion (604, 704) coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 6 and 7);…
a biasing member (spring 544 or wire 750 that has an adjustable bias see Figs. 7A-7B and paragraph [0074]) providing a biasing force resisting a movement of the second portion relative to the first portion (paragraph [0073]: “an adjustable arm tip 504, swivel arm 543 rotating about a pivot point 546 and biased by spring 544” or paragraph [0074]: “the natural shape of the wire 750 can bias the arm tip 704 back into the retracted position.”); and
an adjustment member (sliding cam 642 or 742) configured to adjust the biasing force (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]: “a sliding cam 642 that when slide in a first direction applies a force to the swivel arm 543 to swing the arm tip 504 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 642 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the swivel arm 543), the spring 544 biases the arm tip 504 back into the retracted position…. The sliding cam 742 can slide in a first direction to bend the wire 750 to push the arm tip 704 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 742 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the arm tip 704, the natural shape of the wire 750 can bias the arm tip 704 back into the retracted position.”).
However, Schutzberg fails to explicitly teach “a second electronic component disposed in the second portion, the first electronic component electrically coupled to the second electronic component through the joint.”
Yamamoto teaches “A securement arm (first arm part 15) for a wearable device (HMD 100), comprising:
a first portion (front arm 18);
a first electronic component (the portion of internal wiring 41 that is within 18) disposed in the first portion (see Fig. 3);
a joint (paragraph [0097]: “hinge shaft” which is covered by cover 17);
a second portion (back arm 16) coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 1A,1B and paragraph [0097]: “First arm part 15 includes first front arm 18 at the front end and first back arm 16 at the rear end that are rotatably connected via a hinge shaft.”);
a second electronic component (the portion of internal wiring 41 that is within 16 and connector 37) disposed in the second portion (see Fig. 3), the first electronic component electrically coupled to the second electronic component through the joint (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0109] and [0112]).”
Yamamoto further teaches (paragraphs [0108]-[0109]): “In HMD 100, power supply 91 and signal processing circuit 92 are connected via connector 37 and plug 93. Power supply 91 and signal processing circuit 92 are external devices connected to HMD 100.
Power supply 91 is a device that supplies power for HMD 100 to carry out various operations. For example, power supply 91 is an alternating current (AC)-direct current (DC) converter that converts household alternating current power to generate direct current power of a voltage necessary for HMD 100 to operate.”
(paragraph [0112]): “The power and image information supplied from an external device or devices are transmitted to drive circuit 38 via internal wiring 41.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate internal wiring that is present in both the first portion and the second portion and an electrical connector 37 in the second portion as taught by Yamamoto in the computer glasses of Schutzberg in order to supply external power and signal to the electronic glasses as taught by Yamamoto (paragraphs [0108],[0109] and [0112]).
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, Schutzberg teaches (Figs. 1A,1B and 6A,6B or 7A,7B) “A securement arm (support arm 602, 702 with arm tip 604,704 and other elements below) for a wearable device (computer glasses 100), comprising:
a first portion (604 or 704);…
a joint (Fig. 6 joint with pivot point 546 or Fig. 7B, the portion between 702 and the end of 704 that can curve inward from a widest position is a living joint);
a second portion (602 or 702) coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 6 and 7);
a second electronic component disposed in the second portion (claim 2: “the second static portion housing an electronic component”)…
a biasing member (spring 544 wire 750 that has an adjustable bias see Figs. 7A-7B and paragraph [0074]) providing a biasing force resisting a movement of the second portion relative to the first portion (paragraph [0073]: “an adjustable arm tip 504, swivel arm 543 rotating about a pivot point 546 and biased by spring 544” or paragraph [0074]: “the natural shape of the wire 750 can bias the arm tip 704 back into the retracted position.”); and
an adjustment member (sliding cam 642 or 742) configured to adjust the biasing force (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]: “a sliding cam 642 that when slide in a first direction applies a force to the swivel arm 543 to swing the arm tip 504 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 642 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the swivel arm 543), the spring 544 biases the arm tip 504 back into the retracted position…. The sliding cam 742 can slide in a first direction to bend the wire 750 to push the arm tip 704 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 742 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the arm tip 704, the natural shape of the wire 750 can bias the arm tip 704 back into the retracted position.”).”
However, Schutzberg fails to explicitly teach “a first electronic component disposed in the first portion… the first electronic component electrically coupled to the second electronic component through the joint.”
Yamamoto teaches “A securement arm (first arm part 15) for a wearable device (HMD 100), comprising:
a first portion (back arm 16);
a first electronic component (the portion of internal wiring 41 that is within 16 and connector 37) disposed in the first portion (see Fig. 3);
a joint (paragraph [0097]: “hinge shaft” which is covered by cover 17);
a second portion (front arm 18) coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 1A,1B and paragraph [0097]: “First arm part 15 includes first front arm 18 at the front end and first back arm 16 at the rear end that are rotatably connected via a hinge shaft.”);
a second electronic component (the portion of internal wiring 41 that is within 18) disposed in the second portion (see Fig. 3), the first electronic component electrically coupled to the second electronic component through the joint (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0109] and [0112]).”
Yamamoto further teaches (paragraphs [0108]-[0109]): “In HMD 100, power supply 91 and signal processing circuit 92 are connected via connector 37 and plug 93. Power supply 91 and signal processing circuit 92 are external devices connected to HMD 100.
Power supply 91 is a device that supplies power for HMD 100 to carry out various operations. For example, power supply 91 is an alternating current (AC)-direct current (DC) converter that converts household alternating current power to generate direct current power of a voltage necessary for HMD 100 to operate.”
(paragraph [0112]): “The power and image information supplied from an external device or devices are transmitted to drive circuit 38 via internal wiring 41.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate internal wiring that is present in both the first portion and the second portion and an electrical connector 37 in the second portion as taught by Yamamoto in the computer glasses of Schutzberg in order to supply external power and signal to the electronic glasses as taught by Yamamoto (paragraphs [0108],[0109] and [0112]).
Regarding claim 2, the Schutzberg – Yamamoto combination teaches “The securement arm of claim 1,” and Schutzberg further teaches “wherein the adjustment member comprises a body (sliding cam 642 or 742) slidable along a length (paragraph [0073] “a sliding cam 642 that when slide in a first direction… the sliding cam 642 is slid in a second, opposite direction” or paragraph [0074]: “The sliding cam 742 can slide in a first direction… the sliding cam 742 is slid in a second, opposite direction”) of one of the first portion or the second portion (see Figs. 6A,6B 642 slides along 602 or Figs. 7A and 7B sliding cam 742 slides along 702) to adjust the biasing force (paragraph [0073]: “When the sliding cam 642 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the swivel arm 543), the spring 544 biases the arm tip 504 back into the retracted position” or paragraph [0074]: “The sliding cam 742 can slide in a first direction to bend the wire 750 to push the arm tip 704 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 742 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the arm tip 704, the natural shape of the wire 750 can bias the arm tip 704 back into the retracted position.”).”
Regarding claim 5, the Schutzberg – Yamamoto combination teaches “The securement arm of claim 2,” and Schutzberg further teaches “wherein a movement of the body away from the joint decreases the biasing force (see Figs. 6A,6B and paragraph [0073] “When the sliding cam 642 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the swivel arm 543), the spring 544 biases the arm tip 504 back into the retracted position” or Figs. 7A and 7B and paragraph [0074]: “When the sliding cam 742 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the arm tip 704, the natural shape of the wire 750 can bias the arm tip 704 back into the retracted position.”).”
Regarding claim 6, the Schutzberg – Yamamoto combination teaches “The securement arm of claim 1,” and Schutzberg further teaches “wherein:
the joint comprises a living hinge (see Figs. 7A-7B, the joint between 702 and the tip of 704 is formed by the deformation of 704, not a pivot, and is thus a living hinge); and
the biasing member comprises an elastic member (750 is a wire that has a bias and can be bent, thus 750 is an elastic member).”
Regarding claim 7, the Schutzberg – Yamamoto combination teaches “the securement arm of claim 1,” and Schutzberg further teaches “A head-mountable device (computer glasses 100) comprising the securement arm of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein:
the securement arm is a first securement arm (see Figs. 1A,1B and claim 2, the first securement arm with 602 and 604 or 702 and 704 is a first securement arm); and
the head-mountable device further comprises a frame (the frame of display element 108) and a second securement arm (the other arm 102/104), the first securement arm extending from the frame and the second securement arm extending from the frame (see Figs. 1A and 1B).”
Regarding claim 8, the second Schutzberg – Yamamoto combination teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 7,” and Schutzberg further teaches “wherein:
the joint is a first joint (the joint between 602 and 604 or 702 and 704 in the first securement arm); and
the head-mountable device further comprises:
a second joint; (the joint between 102 and frame 108, paragraph [0050]: “The support arm 102 can be coupled or attached to and extending from the edges of the computer glasses.” where 102 and 108 are attached is a joint between them, even if that joint isn’t pivotable) and
a third portion (frame 108) coupled to the second portion at the second joint (see Figs. 1A and 1B).”
Regarding claim 9, Schutzberg teaches (Figs. 1A,1B, and 6A, 6B or 7A,7B) “An electronic device (computer glasses 100) comprising:
a viewing frame (the frame of display element 108);
a window (paragraph [0048]: “The display element 108 can include optical properties, such as lenses for vision correction based on incoming light from the physical environment. Additionally or alternatively, the display element 108 can provide information as a display within a field of view of the user. The information can be provided to the exclusion of a view of a physical environment or in addition to (e.g., overlaid with) a physical environment.”) disposed in the viewing frame (the lenses or display portion of 108 are disposed in the frame of 108);…
a securement arm (support arm 602, 702 with arm tip 604,704 and other elements below) extending from the viewing frame (see Figs. 1A and 1B), the securement arm comprising:
a first portion (602 or 702 which is the second static portion, see claim 2) including a first electronic component (claim 2: “the second static portion housing an electronic component”);
a joint (Fig. 6 joint with pivot point 546 or Fig. 7B, the portion between 702 and the end of 704 that can curve inward from a widest position is a living joint);
a second portion (604, 704)… the second portion coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 6 and 7), the second portion having a resting position (the position of Fig. 6A or 7A);
a biasing member (spring 544 or wire 750 that has an adjustable bias see Figs. 7A-7B and paragraph [0074]) having a preload (all elastic members have preload) and configured to resist a movement of the second portion away from the resting position (spring 544 resists being compressed by cam 642 and wire 750 resists being further bent by cam 742); and
an adjustment member (sliding cam 642 or 742) configured to adjust the preload (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]: “a sliding cam 642 that when slide in a first direction applies a force to the swivel arm 543 to swing the arm tip 504 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 642 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the swivel arm 543), the spring 544 biases the arm tip 504 back into the retracted position…. The sliding cam 742 can slide in a first direction to bend the wire 750 to push the arm tip 704 outward toward the user’s head. When the sliding cam 742 is slid in a second, opposite direction (e.g., away from the arm tip 704, the natural shape of the wire 750 can bias the arm tip 704 back into the retracted position.” Thus the sliding cams adjust the configuration of the biasing members 544 and 750 and thus their preloads).”
However, Schutzberg fails to explicitly teach “a projector configured to direct light toward the window… a second portion including a second electronic component.”
Yamamoto teaches “An electronic device (HMD 100) comprising:
a viewing frame (Fig. 1A elements 10, 20 and 31);
a window (lens 40) disposed in the viewing frame (see paragraph [0081]: lens tube 10 includes first convex lens 40L);
a projector (paragraph [0115]: “Note that other than display part 30 that uses the above-described drive circuit 38 and display panel 39, a retinal laser projector, for example, may be used.”) configured to direct light toward the window (see Fig. 2 the display part 30 which can be a projector directs light through lens 40); and
a securement arm (first arm part 15) extending from the viewing frame (see Fig. 1), the securement arm comprising:
a first portion (front arm 18) including a first electronic component (the portion of internal wiring 41 that is within 18);
a joint (paragraph [0097]: “hinge shaft” which is covered by cover 17);
a second portion (back arm 16) including a second electronic component (the portion of internal wiring 41 that is within 16 and connector 37), the second portion coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Fig. 1A).”
Yamamoto further teaches (paragraph [0115]): “Drive circuit 38 is a circuit device for driving display panel 39. Display panel 39 is a device such as a liquid crystal panel, an organic electroluminescent (EL) panel, or a micro light-emitting diode (LED) panel. Note that other than display part 30 that uses the above-described drive circuit 38 and display panel 39, a retinal laser projector, for example, may be used.”
Schutzberg discloses the claimed invention except that an unspecified display is used instead of a projector. Yamamoto shows that a laser projector is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two near-eye displays were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a laser projector as taught by Yamamoto for the unspecified display of Schutzberg, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
Yamamoto further teaches (paragraphs [0108]-[0109]): “In HMD 100, power supply 91 and signal processing circuit 92 are connected via connector 37 and plug 93. Power supply 91 and signal processing circuit 92 are external devices connected to HMD 100.
Power supply 91 is a device that supplies power for HMD 100 to carry out various operations. For example, power supply 91 is an alternating current (AC)-direct current (DC) converter that converts household alternating current power to generate direct current power of a voltage necessary for HMD 100 to operate.”
(paragraph [0112]): “The power and image information supplied from an external device or devices are transmitted to drive circuit 38 via internal wiring 41.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate internal wiring that is present in both the first portion and the second portion and an electrical connector 37 in the second portion as taught by Yamamoto in the computer glasses of Schutzberg in order to supply external power and signal to the electronic glasses as taught by Yamamoto (paragraphs [0108],[0109] and [0112]).
Regarding claim 10, the Schutzberg – Yamamoto combination teaches “The electronic device of claim 9,” and Schutzberg further teaches “wherein the biasing member is further configured to resist an outward rotation of the second portion away from the viewing frame (in the position of Figs. 6B and 7B, the arm tips 604 and 704 are pushing inwards towards the user’s head, and thus resisting outward rotation of 604/704 see paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).”
Regarding claim 14, the Schutzberg – Yamamoto combination teaches “The electronic device of claim 9,” and Schutzberg further teaches “wherein the adjustment member is configured to adjust a tension in the biasing member (642 compresses 544 and 742 bends 750 thus adjusting the tension in the biasing members).”
Claims 1, 7-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddick et al. US 2013/0127980 A1 (hereafter Haddick).
Regarding claim 1, Haddick teaches (Figs. 178-180) “A securement arm (one of the left and right ear horns 17802) for a wearable device (paragraph [0833]: “eyewear”), comprising:
a first portion (three portions with two joints are shown in Figs. 178 and 179, let the portion closest to the frame be considered the first portion);
a first electronic component disposed in the first portion;
a joint (paragraph [0833]: “joint”);
a second portion (let the middle portion in Figs. 178 or 179 be the second portion) coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 178 or 179 and paragraph [0833]: “two or more joints connecting members that may be bent to a curved shape”);
a second electronic component disposed in the second portion, the first electronic component electrically coupled to the second electronic component through the joint;
a biasing member (cable 17804 whose tension determines the rigidity of the ear horn) providing a biasing force resisting a movement of the second portion relative to the first portion (paragraph [0833]: “as the tension of the cable 17804 increases, the ear horn becomes more rigid or less relaxed to position to the user's head, and as the tension is released in the cable 17804, the ear horn becomes more flexible allowing one or both of ear horns to straighten and/or to fold flat.” Thus the cable in its shortened form resists rotation of the second portion away from the frame); and
an adjustment member (adjustor 17808) configured to adjust the biasing force (paragraph [0833]: “The cable 17804 may be attached to and tightened via an adjustor 17808 whereby positioning the adjustor to increase tension in the cable 17804 causes the ear horn to bend or curve to shape to the user's head.”).”
However, Haddick Figs. 178-180 fails to explicitly teach “a first electronic component disposed in the first portion;… a second electronic component disposed in the second portion, the first electronic component electrically coupled to the second electronic component through the joint.”
Haddick teaches (Figs. 174-176): “A securement arm (the arms of the glasses in Figs. 174-176, paragraph [0507]) for a wearable device (paragraph [0507] “glasses”), comprising:
a first portion (the segment of the front frame that extends rearward from the lenses and which is pivotably connected to the rest of the arms);
a first electronic component disposed in the first portion (paragraph [0507]: “the electronics in the front frame” and the portion of wires 17402 that are in the front frame segment of the arms);
a joint (paragraph [0507]: “the hinge”);
a second portion (the body of the arm that is coupled to the front frame by the hinge) coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 174-176);
a second electronic component disposed in the second portion (paragraph [0507] “earbuds” and the portion of wires 17402 that are in the body of the arm), the first electronic component electrically coupled to the second electronic component through the joint (see Figs. 174-176 and paragraph [0507]: “The wiring design may include wires 17402 running from the front frame electronics to earbuds located on the arms.”).”
Haddick further teaches (paragraph [0507]): “Referring now to FIG. 174, the batteries are enabled to power the electronics in the front frame, even through an operable hinge 17408, using a wiring design that uses a minimal number of wires and passes through the hinge in a wire guide 17404. The wiring design may include wires 17402 running from the front frame electronics to earbuds located on the arms.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wiring into the first and second portions of the securement arm as taught by Haddick Figs. 174-176 in the eyewear of Haddick Figs. 178-180 for the purpose of electrically connecting earbuds located in the arms proximate to the ears of the wearer to batteries in the front frame in order to provide power to the earbuds as taught by Haddick (paragraph [0507]).
Regarding claim 7, Haddick teaches “A head-mountable device (paragraph [0833]: “eyewear”) comprising the securement arm of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein:
the securement arm is a first securement arm (the arm shown in Figs. 178-180 is one of two arms); and
the head-mountable device further comprises a frame (paragraph [0833]: “eyepiece” Fig. 180, specifically the frame portion thereof) and a second securement arm (the other arm), the first securement arm extending from the frame and the second securement arm extending from the frame (see Fig. 180, this is how arms and front portions of eyewear work).”
Regarding claim 8, Haddick teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 7, wherein:
the joint is a first joint (there are two or more joints see paragraph [0833] and Figs. 178-179); and
the head-mountable device further comprises:
a second joint (the second joint of Figs. 178-179 between the middle portion and the end portion); and
a third portion (the end portion of the ear horn in Figs. 178-179) coupled to the second portion at the second joint (see Figs. 178-179).”
Regarding claim 9, Haddick teaches “An electronic device (paragraph [0833]: “eyewear”) comprising:
a viewing frame (paragraph [0833]: “eyepiece” Fig. 180, specifically the frame portion thereof);
a window disposed in the viewing frame (paragraph [0010] “The present disclosure relates to an augmented reality eyepiece” thus the lenses shown in the eyepiece of Fig. 180 are windows in that they are transparent.);
… and
a securement arm (one of the left and right ear horns 17802) extending from the viewing frame (see Fig. 180 and paragraph [0833]: “In embodiments, the ear horn may comprise a portion of the earpiece of an eyepiece as shown in FIG. 180, or it may comprise the entire earpiece (not shown).”), the securement arm comprising:
a first portion (three portions with two joints are shown in Figs. 178 and 179, let the portion closest to the frame be considered the first portion) …
a joint (paragraph [0833]: “joint”);
a second portion (let the middle portion in Figs. 178 or 179 be the second portion) … the second portion coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 178 or 179 and paragraph [0833]: “two or more joints connecting members that may be bent to a curved shape”), the second portion having a resting position (the position of the earhorn at any given tension of the cable 17804);
a biasing member (cable 17804 whose tension determines the rigidity of the ear horn) having a preload (the tension of the cable 17804) and configured to resist a movement of the second portion away from the resting position (paragraph [0833]: “as the tension of the cable 17804 increases, the ear horn becomes more rigid or less relaxed to position to the user's head, and as the tension is released in the cable 17804, the ear horn becomes more flexible allowing one or both of ear horns to straighten and/or to fold flat.” Thus, at any given tension of the cable the cable resists the movement of the second portion away from the current resting position.); and
an adjustment member (adjustor 17808) configured to adjust the preload (paragraph [0833]: “The cable 17804 may be attached to and tightened via an adjustor 17808 whereby positioning the adjustor to increase tension in the cable 17804 causes the ear horn to bend or curve to shape to the user's head.”).”
However, Haddick Figs. 178-180 fails to explicitly teach “a projector configured to direct light toward the window.”
Haddick Fig. 1 teaches “An electronic device (augmented reality eyepiece 100) comprising:
a viewing frame (the portion of 100 that holds the lens or lenses 104);
a window (lens or lenses 104 which are a window in that they are transparent given that 100 is for augmented reality) disposed in the viewing frame (see Fig. 1);
a projector (projector 108, 208, 308) configured to direct light toward the window (paragraph [0288]: “Images may be projected with a projector 108 onto at least one lens 104”); and
a securement arm (arm portions 122) extending from the viewing frame (see Fig. 1).”
Haddick further teaches (paragraph [0288]): “Referring to FIG. 1, an illustrative embodiment of the augmented reality eyepiece 100 may be depicted… Images may be projected with a projector 108 onto at least one lens 104 disposed in an opening of the frame 102. One or more projectors 108, such as a nanoprojector, picoprojector, microprojector, femtoprojector, LASER-based projector, holographic projector, and the like may be disposed in an arm portion of the eyepiece frame 102.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a projector as taught by Haddick Fig. 1 into the eyewear of Haddick Figs. 178-180 so that they can function as an augmented reality device and project images onto the lens as taught by Haddick (Fig. 1 paragraph [0288]).
However, Haddick Figs. 178-180 also fails to explicitly teach “a first portion including a first electronic component… a second portion including a second electronic component.”
Haddick teaches (Figs. 174-176): “An electronic device (paragraph [0507] “glasses”) comprising:
a viewing frame (paragraph [0507]: “the front frame” or the portion thereof that holds the lenses);
a window disposed in the viewing frame (paragraph [0010] “The present disclosure relates to an augmented reality eyepiece” thus the lenses shown in the glasses of Fig. 174 are windows in that they are transparent.);
… and
a securement arm (the arms of the glasses in Figs. 174-176, paragraph [0507]) extending from the viewing frame (see Fig. 174), the securement arm comprising:
a first portion (the segment of the front frame that extends rearward from the lenses and which is pivotably connected to the rest of the arms) including a first electronic component (paragraph [0507]: “the electronics in the front frame” and the portion of wires 17402 that are in the front frame segment of the arms);
a joint (paragraph [0507]: “the hinge”);
a second portion (the body of the arm that is coupled to the front frame by the hinge) including a second electronic component (paragraph [0507] “earbuds” and the portion of wires 17402 that are in the body of the arm), the second portion coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 174-176).”
Haddick further teaches (paragraph [0507]): “Referring now to FIG. 174, the batteries are enabled to power the electronics in the front frame, even through an operable hinge 17408, using a wiring design that uses a minimal number of wires and passes through the hinge in a wire guide 17404. The wiring design may include wires 17402 running from the front frame electronics to earbuds located on the arms.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wiring into the first and second portions of the securement arm as taught by Haddick Figs. 174-176 in the eyewear of Haddick Figs. 178-180 for the purpose of electrically connecting earbuds located in the arms proximate to the ears of the wearer to batteries in the front frame in order to provide power to the earbuds as taught by Haddick (paragraph [0507]).
Regarding claim 10, Haddick teaches “The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the biasing member is further configured to resist an outward rotation of the second portion away from the viewing frame (paragraph [0833]: “By increasing such tension, the ear horn may stiffen and or become more rigid. By shaping to the user's head, the ear horn 17802 may adjust to a specific user's head and/or to assist in eyewear retention by securely holding eyewear to a user's head… as the tension of the cable 17804 increases, the ear horn becomes more rigid or less relaxed to position to the user's head” Thus the cable resists outward rotation of the second portion away from the shape of the user’s head).”
Regarding claim 14, Haddick teaches “The electronic device of claim 9, wherein the adjustment member is configured to adjust a tension in the biasing member (paragraph [0833]: “The cable 17804 may be attached to and tightened via an adjustor 17808 whereby positioning the adjustor to increase tension in the cable 17804”).”
Claims 2-6, 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddick et al. US 2013/0127980 A1 (hereafter Haddick) as applied to claims 1, 9 and 15 above and further in view of Farnam US 2013/0100397 A1 (hereafter Farnam).
Regarding claim 2, Haddick teaches “The securement arm of claim 1,” however, Haddick fails to explicitly teach “wherein the adjustment member comprises a body slidable along a length of one of the first portion or the second portion to adjust the biasing force.”
Note, however, that Haddick teaches (paragraph [0833]): “the adjustor 17808 may be a ratcheted, electro-actuated, wheel adjusted, comprise a wedge slider, and the like.”
Farnam teaches (claim 1) “A securement arm (temple piece 106) for a wearable device (eyewear 100), comprising:
a first portion (first temple portion 200);
a joint (the elements that enable 202 to be connected to and pivotable relative to 200);
a second portion (second temple portion 202) coupled to the first portion at the joint (see Figs. 1, 2, 4A and 4B);
… a biasing member (the portion of 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206) providing a biasing force resisting a movement of the second portion relative to the first portion (e.g. paragraphs [0059]-[0060]: “as second temple portion 202 advances toward frame 102 thereby urging second temple portion 202 inward… Those skilled in the art will recognize that the deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed and, therefore, will deflect back outward as projections 212 advance back toward the closed end of channel 210.); and
an adjustment member (guide feature 204, paragraph [0055]: “guide feature 204 that is adapted to slidably engage the upper and opposite lower edges of first temple piece 200.”) configured to adjust the biasing force (paragraph [0055]: “The sliding of second temple portions 202 along first temple portions 200 facilitates adjusting the lengths (i.e. distance between distal ends 114 and frame 102) of temple pieces 106 according to wearer preference.” The elastic bias of the temple portion 202 changes with the length due to interaction with 206.).”
(claim 2) “wherein the adjustment member comprises a body (guide feature 204) slidable along a length of one of the first portion or the second portion (paragraph [0055]: “The sliding of second temple portions 202 along first temple portions 200”. Thus 204 slides along the length of the first portion 200) to adjust the biasing force (paragraph [0055]: “The sliding of second temple portions 202 along first temple portions 200 facilitates adjusting the lengths (i.e. distance between distal ends 114 and frame 102) of temple pieces 106 according to wearer preference.” The elastic bias of the temple portion 202 changes with the length due to interaction with 206.).”
Farnam further teaches (paragraph [0057]): “Each locking mechanisms 116 includes a plurality of through-holes 214 formed through first temple portion 200 and a complementary projection 216 formed on a flexible tab 218 of second temple portion 202. Each of through-holes 214 are adapted to receive projection 216 such that eyewear 100 can be configured in a discrete number (five in this example) of fixed positions. That is, each of through-holes 214 is associated with a discrete one of five positions, each of which is characterized by a unique length and angle of temple piece 106. Flexible tab 218 facilitates the adjustment of temple piece 106 from one discrete fixed position to another. To adjust temple piece 106, tab 218 is flexed inward by some suitable means (e.g., fingernail) a distance sufficient to allow second temple portion 202 to slide along first temple piece 200. After projection 216 is properly aligned with another desired one of through-holes 214, tab 218 is released thereby locking temple piece 106 into position.”
Haddick teaches discloses adjusting the tension in an elastic cable thereby biasing the earpieces against the side of the wearer’s head using and adjustor where the adjustor 17808 may be a ratcheted, electro-actuated, wheel adjusted, comprise a wedge slider, and the like (paragraph [0833]). However the adjustor is only schematically depicted.
Farnam teaches a guide feature that adjusts the length of an elastic member thereby biasing the earpieces against the side of the wearer’s head that both comprises a body slidable along the length of the first portion and includes a ratcheted engagement with the first portion (see 216 and 214).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to adjust the length and bias of the elastic member of Haddick using a ratcheted slidable body as taught by Farnam for the purpose of releasably locking the temple piece into a desired position chosen by the wearer as taught by Farnam paragraph [0057].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the Haddick – Farnam combination teaches “The securement arm of claim 2,” however, Haddick fails to teach (claim 3) “wherein:
the biasing member has a spring rate; and
the body comprises a block slidably coupled to the one of the first portion or the second portion to adjust the spring rate.”
(claim 4) wherein: the biasing member comprises a bending beam having an effective length; and the effective length is adjusted based on a position of the block along the one of the first portion or the second portion.
Farnam teaches (claim 3) “wherein:
the biasing member has a spring rate (paragraph [0060]: “the deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed and, therefore, will deflect back outward as projections 212 advance back toward the closed end of channel 210.”); and
the body comprises a block slidably coupled to the one of the first portion or the second portion to adjust the spring rate (paragraph [0055]: “The sliding of second temple portions 202 along first temple portions 200 facilitates adjusting the lengths (i.e. distance between distal ends 114 and frame 102) of temple pieces 106 according to wearer preference.” The spring rate of the portion of 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206 changes as its length changes from a very short length in the position of Fig. 4A to longer lengths at each of the other 3 fixed positions including the position where 204 is closest to the frame 102 in Fig. 4B).”
(claim 4) “wherein:
the biasing member comprises a bending beam (the portion of 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206 is a bending beam see Figs. 4A and 4B) having an effective length (the length between 204 and the innermost tip of 206); and
the effective length is adjusted based on a position of the block along the one of the first portion or the second portion (compare Figs. 4A and 4B).”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Haddick, teaches a securement arm which differs from claims 3 and 4, by the substitution of a tensioned cable that is changing in length to bias the ear horn against the wearer’s head, as opposed to a biasing member whose spring rate is being adjusted by the change in an effective length due to the sliding of a sliding body.
(2) the component of a biasing member having a spring rate that is adjusted by adjusting the effective length of the biasing member and its function were known in the art in view of Farnam.
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a flat elastic biasing member as taught by Farnam for the tensioned cable, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been to increase the strength and durability of the temple arm.
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a biasing member whose spring rate is being adjusted by the change in an effective length due to the sliding of a sliding body as taught by Farnam for the tensioned cable in the device of Haddick and the results thereof would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5, the Haddick – Farnam combination teaches “The securement arm of claim 2,” however, Haddick fails to teach “wherein a movement of the body away from the joint decreases the biasing force.”
Farnam teaches “wherein a movement of the body away from the joint decreases the biasing force (in the position of Fig. 4A where 204 is in it’s closest position to the joint, the portion of 202 that is between 204 and the innermost tip of 206 is at its shortest length, and thus the stiffest. Whereas when 204 is moved away from the joint to the position of Fig. 4B the biasing force of the portion of 202 that is between 204 and the innermost tip of 206 is decreased as is evident by the bend therein).”
Haddick teaches discloses adjusting the tension in an elastic cable thereby biasing the earpieces against the side of the wearer’s head using and adjustor where the adjustor 17808 may be a ratcheted, electro-actuated, wheel adjusted, comprise a wedge slider, and the like (paragraph [0833]). However the adjustor is only schematically depicted.
Farnam teaches a guide feature that adjusts the length of an elastic member thereby biasing the earpieces against the side of the wearer’s head that both comprises a body slidable along the length of the first portion and includes a ratcheted engagement with the first portion (see 216 and 214).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to adjust the length and bias of the elastic member of Haddick using a ratcheted slidable body as taught by Farnam for the purpose of releasably locking the temple piece into a desired position chosen by the wearer as taught by Farnam paragraph [0057]. The feature “wherein a movement of the body away from the joint decreases the biasing force” naturally flows from this combination, as taught by Farnam.
Regarding claim 6, Haddick teaches “The securement arm of claim 1.” However Haddick does not explicitly teach “wherein: the joint comprises a living hinge and the biasing member comprises an elastic member.”
Haddick does teach (paragraph [0833]): “In embodiments, the ear horn 17804 may be constructed in a robotic finger configuration and shaped as shown in FIG. 179B”, but does not specify the other types of hinges available.
Farnam teaches “wherein: the joint comprises a living hinge (the joint between 200 and 202 is a living hinge in that it is integrally formed by the bending of 202) and the biasing member comprises an elastic member (paragraph [0060]: “Those skilled in the art will recognize that the deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed and, therefore, will deflect back outward as projections 212 advance back toward the closed end of channel 210”).”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Haddick, teaches a securement arm which differs from the claimed securement by the substitution of the component a fixed pivot joint or undisclosed pivot joint with another component, a living hinge comprising an elastic member;
(2) the component of a living hinge comprising an elastic member and its function were known in the art in view of Farnam;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a living hinge comprising an elastic member for a fixed pivot joint, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been a greater simplicity in manufacture;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a living hinge comprising an elastic member as taught by Farnam for the fixed pivot joint in the device of Haddick and the results thereof would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Haddick teaches “The electronic device of claim 9,” however Haddick fails to teach “wherein:
the biasing member comprises a flat spring having a spring rate; and
the adjustment member comprises a block slidably coupled to one of the first portion or the second portion to adjust the spring rate.”
Farnam teaches “wherein:
the biasing member comprises a flat spring (the segment of the temple portion 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206 is a flat spring, see shape in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0060]: “Those skilled in the art will recognize that the deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed”) having a spring rate (the spring rate of the segment of the temple portion 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206); and
the adjustment member comprises a block (guide feature 204) slidably coupled to one of the first portion or the second portion (paragraph [0055]: “The sliding of second temple portions 202 along first temple portions 200” which is sliding along the first portion) to adjust the spring rate (the sliding of 204 adjusts the spring rate of the segment of the temple portion 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206 by changing its effective length).”
Haddick teaches discloses adjusting the tension in an elastic cable thereby biasing the earpieces against the side of the wearer’s head using and adjustor where the adjustor 17808 may be a ratcheted, electro-actuated, wheel adjusted, comprise a wedge slider, and the like (paragraph [0833]). However the adjustor is only schematically depicted.
Farnam teaches a guide feature that adjusts the length of an elastic member thereby biasing the earpieces against the side of the wearer’s head that both comprises a body slidable along the length of the first portion and includes a ratcheted engagement with the first portion (see 216 and 214).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to adjust the length and bias of the elastic member of Haddick using a ratcheted slidable body as taught by Farnam that adjusts the spring rate of a flat spring biasing member for the purpose of releasably locking the temple piece into a desired position chosen by the wearer as taught by Farnam paragraph [0057].
Regarding claim 16, Haddick teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15,” however, Haddick fails to teach “further comprising:
wherein the adjustment member comprises a body selectively positioned along a length of one of the first portion or the second portion to adjust the force; and
a locking mechanism releasably securing the body in a selected position along the length.”
Farnam teaches (claim 15) “A head-mountable device (eyewear 100) comprising:
a frame (frame 102);
an optically transparent window (eyepieces 104, which are optically transparent in that they allow the wearer to view a 3-D movie see e.g. paragraph [0007]) secured to the frame (see Fig. 2);
a first securement arm (one of the two temple pieces 106) extending from the frame (see Fig. 2); and
a second securement arm (the other of the two temple pieces 106) extending from the frame (see Fig. 2), each of the first securement arm and the second securement arm comprising:
a first portion (first temple portion 200) coupled to the frame (see Fig. 2);
a second portion (second temple portion 202);
a joint (the elements that pivotally couple 202 to 204) coupling the second portion to the first portion (see coupling in Figs. 4A and 4B);
a biasing member (the portion of 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206) providing a force resisting a rotation of the second portion away from the frame (paragraph [0060]: “deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed” thus 202 and any portion thereof acts as an elastic flat spring, resisting bending thereof, and thus resisting a rotation of the distal end 114 away from the frame); and
an adjustment member (guide feature 210) configured to adjust the force (the position of 210 along 200 adjusts the force against the wearer’s head as seen in Figs. 4A and 4B by changing the at rest position of distal end 214).”
(claim 16) “further comprising:
wherein the adjustment member comprises a body (guide feature 210) selectively positioned (e.g. paragraph [0057]: “Each of through-holes 214 are adapted to receive projection 216 such that eyewear 100 can be configured in a discrete number (five in this example) of fixed positions.”) along a length of one of the first portion or the second portion (e.g. paragraph [0055]: “a guide feature 204 that is adapted to slidably engage the upper and opposite lower edges of first temple piece 200.” which is positioning 204 along the first portion) to adjust the force (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “as second temple portion 202 advances toward frame 102 thereby urging second temple portion 202 inward.”); and
a locking mechanism (locking mechanisms 116) releasably securing the body in a selected position along the length (paragraph [0057]: “Each locking mechanisms 116 includes a plurality of through-holes 214… a complementary projection 216 … Each of through-holes 214 are adapted to receive projection 216 such that eyewear 100 can be configured in a discrete number (five in this example) of fixed positions… Flexible tab 218 facilitates the adjustment of temple piece 106 from one discrete fixed position to another.”).”
Farnam further teaches (paragraph [0057]): “Each locking mechanisms 116 includes a plurality of through-holes 214 formed through first temple portion 200 and a complementary projection 216 formed on a flexible tab 218 of second temple portion 202. Each of through-holes 214 are adapted to receive projection 216 such that eyewear 100 can be configured in a discrete number (five in this example) of fixed positions. That is, each of through-holes 214 is associated with a discrete one of five positions, each of which is characterized by a unique length and angle of temple piece 106. Flexible tab 218 facilitates the adjustment of temple piece 106 from one discrete fixed position to another. To adjust temple piece 106, tab 218 is flexed inward by some suitable means (e.g., fingernail) a distance sufficient to allow second temple portion 202 to slide along first temple piece 200. After projection 216 is properly aligned with another desired one of through-holes 214, tab 218 is released thereby locking temple piece 106 into position.”
Haddick teaches discloses adjusting the tension in an elastic cable thereby biasing the earpieces against the side of the wearer’s head using and adjustor where the adjustor 17808 may be a ratcheted, electro-actuated, wheel adjusted, comprise a wedge slider, and the like (paragraph [0833]). However the adjustor is only schematically depicted.
Farnam teaches a guide feature that adjusts the length of an elastic member thereby biasing the earpieces against the side of the wearer’s head that both comprises a body slidable along the length of the first portion and includes a ratcheted engagement with the first portion (see 216 and 214).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to adjust the length and bias of the elastic member of Haddick using a ratcheted slidable body as taught by Farnam for the purpose of releasably locking the temple piece into a desired position chosen by the wearer as taught by Farnam paragraph [0057].
Regarding claim 17, Haddick teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15, wherein:
the joint comprises a fixed pivot point (see fixed pivot point joints in the robotic finger configuration of Fig. 179B) for rotation of the second portion relative to the first portion (e.g. paragraph [0833]: “causes the ear horn to bend or curve to shape to the user's head”); and
the biasing member… extending across the pivot point (see how cable 17804 extends across both joints in Fig. 179B).”
However, Haddick fails to explicitly teach “the biasing member comprises a spring.”
Farnam teaches (claim 15) “A head-mountable device (eyewear 100) comprising:
a frame (frame 102);
an optically transparent window (eyepieces 104, which are optically transparent in that they allow the wearer to view a 3-D movie see e.g. paragraph [0007]) secured to the frame (see Fig. 2);
a first securement arm (one of the two temple pieces 106) extending from the frame (see Fig. 2); and
a second securement arm (the other of the two temple pieces 106) extending from the frame (see Fig. 2), each of the first securement arm and the second securement arm comprising:
a first portion (first temple portion 200) coupled to the frame (see Fig. 2);
a second portion (second temple portion 202);
a joint (the elements that pivotally couple 202 to 204) coupling the second portion to the first portion (see coupling in Figs. 4A and 4B);
a biasing member (the portion of 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206) providing a force resisting a rotation of the second portion away from the frame (paragraph [0060]: “deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed” thus 202 and any portion thereof acts as an elastic flat spring, resisting bending thereof, and thus resisting a rotation of the distal end 114 away from the frame); and
an adjustment member (guide feature 210) configured to adjust the force (the position of 210 along 200 adjusts the force against the wearer’s head as seen in Figs. 4A and 4B by changing the at rest position of distal end 214).”
(claim 17) The head-mountable device of claim 15, wherein:
… the biasing member comprises a spring (202 and any portion thereof is an elastic plate member see shape in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0060]: “the deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed and, therefore, will deflect back outward as projections 212 advance back toward the closed end of channel 210.”) extending across the pivot point (see Figs. 4A and 4B).”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Haddick, teaches a head-mountable device which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of the component a tensioned cable with another component a spring;
(2) the component of a spring and its function were known in the art in view of Farnam;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted an elastic plate spring as taught by Farnam for the tensioned cable of Haddick, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been greater durability of the joint;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a spring as the biasing member as taught by Farnam for the tensioned cable in the device of Haddick and the results thereof would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18, Haddick teaches “The head-mountable device of claim 15,” however, Haddick fails to teach “wherein:
the joint comprises a living hinge; and
the biasing member comprises a plate or a wire resisting an outward rotation of the second portion away from the frame.
Farnam teaches (claim 15) “A head-mountable device (eyewear 100) comprising:
a frame (frame 102);
an optically transparent window (eyepieces 104, which are optically transparent in that they allow the wearer to view a 3-D movie see e.g. paragraph [0007]) secured to the frame (see Fig. 2);
a first securement arm (one of the two temple pieces 106) extending from the frame (see Fig. 2); and
a second securement arm (the other of the two temple pieces 106) extending from the frame (see Fig. 2), each of the first securement arm and the second securement arm comprising:
a first portion (first temple portion 200) coupled to the frame (see Fig. 2);
a second portion (second temple portion 202);
a joint (the elements that pivotally couple 202 to 204) coupling the second portion to the first portion (see coupling in Figs. 4A and 4B);
a biasing member (the portion of 202 between 204 and the innermost tip of 206) providing a force resisting a rotation of the second portion away from the frame (paragraph [0060]: “deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed” thus 202 and any portion thereof acts as an elastic flat spring, resisting bending thereof, and thus resisting a rotation of the distal end 114 away from the frame); and
an adjustment member (guide feature 210) configured to adjust the force (the position of 210 along 200 adjusts the force against the wearer’s head as seen in Figs. 4A and 4B by changing the at rest position of distal end 214).”
(claim 18) “wherein:
the joint comprises a living hinge (the joint between 200 and 202 is a living hinge in that it is integrally formed by the bending of 202); and
the biasing member comprises a plate or a wire (202 is a plate, as is any portion thereof) resisting an outward rotation of the second portion away from the frame (paragraph [0060]: “Those skilled in the art will recognize that the deflection in temple portion 202 is within the elastic range of the material from which it is formed and, therefore, will deflect back outward as projections 212 advance back toward the closed end of channel 210” Thus 202 resists movement away from its at rest position including outward rotation of the distal end 114 away from the frame.).”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Haddick, teaches a securement arm which differs from the claimed securement by the substitution of the component a fixed pivot joint or undisclosed pivot joint with another component, a living hinge comprising an elastic plate member;
(2) the component of a living hinge comprising an elastic plate member and its function were known in the art in view of Farnam;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a living hinge comprising an elastic plate member for a fixed pivot joint, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been a greater simplicity in manufacture;
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a living hinge comprising an elastic plate member as taught by Farnam for the fixed pivot joint in the device of Haddick and the results thereof would have been predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fromm US 3,479,110 “Spectacles Having Temples with Adjustably Biased Ends” pertinent to at least claims 15 and 18.
Kacavenda US 2006/0209251 A1 “Recessed Hinge To Make The Temples Of Spectacles Elastic” elastic means 5 and adjustment nut 6 has similarities with Fig. 9 of the instant application.
Kim US 2007/0121061 A1 “Spring Hinge For Eyeglasses” has similarities with Fig. 6 of the instant application.
Park et al. US 2014/0375947 A1 “Headset with Comfort Fit Temple Arms” Figs. 19-20 and description thereof pertinent to at least claims 1 and 15.
Zuo CN 111965841 A “Glasses Rotating Mechanism, Glasses and Intelligent Glasses” has similarities with Fig. 9 of the instant application.
Kalinowski et al. US 11,714,285 B1 “Head-mountable Device with Head Securement Mechanism” Figs. 6-10 pertinent to at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 The first inventor of the present application is Alison B. Shutzberg, with no “c”. The inventorship of WO 2023/044274 A1 is not given in the PCT application itself, but has been deduced from family member US 2024/0210728 A1 to include Alison B. Schutzberg. While it seems likely that one of these is a misspelling for the same person, this has not been established.
2 The first inventor of the present application is Alison B. Shutzberg, with no “c”. The inventorship of WO 2023/044274 A1 is not given in the PCT application itself, but has been deduced from family member US 2024/0210728 A1 to include Alison B. Schutzberg. While it seems likely that one of these is a misspelling for the same person, this has not been established.
Prosecution Insights