DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al (pub # 20160044981) in view of Law et al (WO 2022/160012 A1).
Consider claim 1. Frank et al teaches A head-mounted device, (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0026, headband 100). comprising:
a head-mounted housing having a rigid portion; (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0026, headband 100 may be comprised of semi-rigid members 108).
an overhead strap coupled to the rigid portion; (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0033, overhead loop 104 coupled to semi-rigid members 108).
a rear strap coupled to the rigid portion; (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0028, rear headpiece 114 coupled to the semi-rigid members 108).
and an adjustable counterweight that is attached to the rigid portion and configured to counterbalance the head-mounted housing. (Fig. 11 and paragraph 0061, components 204a of the operational assembly 204 such as the processing components and/or power supply may be mounted at or as part of the rear headpiece 114 of the crown loop 102 of the headband 100. Paragraph 0063, As above, the weight of components 204a may be distributed so that the center of gravity of the head-worn assembly 300 as a whole may be centered over the axis through the pivot assemblies 134. Thus the rear headpiece comprising components 204a in Fig. 11 can read on a counterweight).
Frank et al does not specifically disclose wherein the adjustable counterweight is rotatable relative to the overhead strap and relative to the rear strap about the rigid portion. However Law et al in at least Fig. 20 and paragraphs 00692 and 00693 discloses a head-mounted display 1000 comprising a battery pack 1018 acting as a counterweight to the display 1012. Paragraph 00693 discloses that the “the battery pack can be moveable about the sagittal plane of the user’s head and can be secured in multiple locations on and between the parietal bone and occipital bone of the user.” Also Fig. 20 illustrates that the battery pack 1018 can move up and down the rear of the user’s head, thus the battery pack being rotatable between a top of the user’s head and a rear of the user’s head. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the counterweight of Frank et al to be rotatable relative to the overhead strap and the rear strap as disclosed by Law et al in order to provide an improved system and method of balancing the display on the user’s head so that it can remain secured to the user when in use.
Consider claim 2. Frank et al further teaches The head-mounted device defined in claim 1 further comprising a clutch that is configured to adjust a rotational orientation of the adjustable counterweight relative to the rigid portion. (paragraph 0045, It is understood that some or all of the embodiments of FIGS. 4-9 may also include a pair of slides and frictional clutch 138 as described above to enable both translation and rotation of the head-worn device relative to the headband 100).
Consider claim 9. Frank et al further teaches The head-mounted device defined in claim 1 further comprising a battery in the adjustable counterweight. (Fig. 11 and paragraph 0061, components 204a of the operational assembly 204 such as the processing components and/or power supply may be mounted at or as part of the rear headpiece 114. Paragraph 0060 discloses the power supply may be one or more batteries).
Consider claim 12. Frank et al further teaches The head-mounted device defined in claim 1 wherein the rigid portion comprises an elongated rigid portion that extends rearwardly from the housing. (Fig. 1 semi-rigid members 108 extend rearwardly from the housing).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al (pub # 20160044981) in view of Law et al (WO 2022/160012 A1) and further in view of Binder et al (WO 2023/099675 A1).
Consider 3. Frank et al in view of Law et al does not specifically disclose The head-mounted device defined in claim 2 wherein the adjustable counterweight has an elongated support and a counterweight mass slidably coupled to the elongated support. However Binder et al in at least figure 14 and page 17 lines 28-35 discloses a head-mounted device comprising a power source 80 that is arranged such the it forms a counter-weight to the front main frame 1 and a band 8 (elongated support). The power source 80 is preferably slidable relative to the band 8, thus a counterweight mass slidably coupled to the elongated support. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Binder et al with the head-mounted device of Frank et al in order to improve the device to allow the user more control in adjusting the counterweight to balance the device on the user’s head.
Consider claim 10. Frank et al further teaches The head-mounted device defined in claim 1 further comprising circuitry in the adjustable counterweight, (paragraph 0061, processing components may be mounted at or as part of the rear headpiece 114).
Frank et al in view of Law et al does not specifically disclose a port in the rigid portion and a cable that connects the circuitry in the adjustable counterweight to the port. However Binder et al in at least Fig. 14 and page 17 lines 28-35 discloses a head mounted device comprising a power source 80 that acts as counterweight to the front main from 1. The device also comprises a wire 70 that leads from the electronic unit arranged in the front main frame 1 to the power source 80. Binder et al also discloses in page 12 lines 19-21 and lines 29-30 ports are present to charge the batteries through a wire and a port for a USB connector or similar connector is present in the frame. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Binder et al with the head-mounted device of Frank et al in order provide a reliable method for the circuitry in the counterweight to communicate with the rest of the head-mounted device.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al (pub # 20160044981) in view of Law et al (WO 2022/160012 A1) further in view of Binder et al (WO 2023/099675 A1) and further in view of Nakabayashi et al (pub # 20100327028).
Consider claim 4. Frank et al in view of Law et al and further in view of Binder et al does not specifically disclose The head-mounted device defined in claim 3 wherein the elongated support comprises a wire attached to the clutch. However Nakabayashi et al in at least Fig. 2 and paragraph 0030 discloses an elongated support (elastic tube 22) having a wire 31 enclosed in it. Figs. 5A and 5B as well as paragraphs 0030 and 031 discloses the wire 31 attached to a pulley 43 which contains clutch 42, thus a wire attached to the clutch. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nakabayashi et al with the head-mounted device of Frank et al in view of Law et al and further in view of Binder et al in order to provide a head-mountable apparatus which allows an easy adjustment operation since the apparatus can be held using fewer adjustment units by efficiently actuating different pressing members using a single adjustment unit, and which allows size and weight to be reduced (Nakabayashi et al paragraph 0009).
Consider claim 5. Frank et al in view of Law et al and further in view of Binder et al does not specifically disclose The head-mounted device defined in claim 4 wherein the counterweight mass comprises a channel configured to receive the wire. However Nakabayashi et al in at least Fig. 2 and paragraph 0045 discloses that the wire 32 passes through the elastic tube 22, thus a channel to receive the wire. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the counterweight mass of Frank et al in view of Law et al and further in view of Binder et al to have a channel to receive the wire as disclosed by Nakabayashi et al to provide a head-mountable apparatus which allows an easy adjustment operation since the apparatus can be held using fewer adjustment units by efficiently actuating different pressing members using a single adjustment unit, and which allows size and weight to be reduced (Nakabayashi et al paragraph 0009).
Consider claim 6. Frank et al in view of Law et al and further in view of Binder et al does not specifically disclose The head-mounted device defined in claim 3 wherein the elongated support comprises a shaft attached to the clutch. However Nakabayashi et al in at least Figs 5A and 5B as well as paragraph 0030 discloses a clutch 42 has a cam groove 42a which fits with the cam shaft 41a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features of Nakabayashi et al with the head-mounted device of Frank et al in view of Law et al and further in view of Binder et al in order to provide a head-mountable apparatus which allows an easy adjustment operation since the apparatus can be held using fewer adjustment units by efficiently actuating different pressing members using a single adjustment unit, and which allows size and weight to be reduced (Nakabayashi et al paragraph 0009).
Consider claim 7. Binder et al further teaches The head-mounted device defined in claim 6 wherein the counterweight mass is configured to slide along the shaft to adjust torque on the rigid portion produced by the counterweight mass. (page 18 lines 16-18, the stiff temples 2, 3 as described with regard to figures 1 to 13 can be used in the embodiments according to figures 14 to 16 as well, thus the power source 80 in Fig. 14 would slide around the stiff temples 2 and 3. The stiff temples 2 and 3 can read on shafts along which the power source 80 would slide).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al (pub # 20160044981) in view of Law et al (WO 2022/160012 A1) and further in view of Magrath (U.S. Pat # 10,509,438).
Consider claim 11. Frank et al in view of Law et al does not specifically disclose The head-mounted device defined in claim 1 further comprising: magnets configured to attach the adjustable counterweight to the rigid portion. However Magrath in at least col. 6 lines 8-23 discloses a removable counter-balance accessory for a head mounted device that can include a magnetic fastener for attaching the counter-balance accessory to the head mounted device. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system and method of Magrath with the head mounted device of Frank et al in order provide an improved method of securing the counterweight to the head mounted device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15, and 16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Consider independent claim 13. The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious “A head-mounted device, comprising: a head-mounted housing having a rigid extension; first and second optical assemblies in the head-mounted housing, wherein each of the first and second optical assemblies includes a respective display and a respective lens; an overhead strap coupled to the rigid extension; and a counterweight configured to rotate relative to the rigid extension and configured to counterbalance the head- mounted housing, wherein the counterweight has a portion forming a cover, and the counterweight is rotatable between a first position in which the cover counterbalances the head-mounted housing and a second position in which the cover overlaps the first and second optical assemblies.”
Claim 15 is allowed due to being dependent from claim 13.
Consider independent claim 16. The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious “A head-mounted device comprising: a head-mounted housing having a rigid extension; an overhead strap coupled to the rigid extension; and an adjustable counterweight coupled to the rigid extension, wherein the adjustable counterweight is configured to counterbalance the head-mounted housing with an adjustable amount of counterbalancing force, the adjustable counterweight includes a wire coupled to the rigid extension and a movable counterbalancing mass, and the movable counterbalancing mass is configured to slide along the wire to adjust the counterbalancing force.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAYCE R BIBBEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/CHAYCE R BIBBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2624
/MATTHEW A EASON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2624