DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the laminar portion is a first laminar portion (figs. 2-3); and the polymer structure includes a second laminar portion" wherein in the previous claim the laminar portion is part of the polymer structure. It is unclear to the examiner how the laminar portion is part of the polymer structure and called the first laminar portion when the polymer structure includes a second laminar structure. It is unclear to the examiner how this is possible and correction or clarification of the claim is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan (10,133,305).
Regarding Claim 1: Sullivan teaches a head mountable device, comprising: a display portion (102) including a display screen (col. 4 lines 29-35); a securement strap (110) connected to the display portion (fig. 1); and a cushion assembly (130) extending from the display portion (fig. 1), the cushion assembly comprising: a foam layer (137); and a perforated polymer barrier (156) including tube structures (158) extending through the foam layer (figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 2: Sullivan teaches a textile layer (138), wherein the perforated polymer barrier is disposed between the textile layer and the foam layer (figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 3: Sullivan teaches the perforated polymer barrier defines a set of apertures (area holding 162); and each tube structure of the tube structures extending through the foam layer extends from an aperture of the set of apertures (figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 4: Sullivan teaches wherein the perforated polymer barrier is configured to press against a face (figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 5: Sullivan teaches the tube structures define passageways through the cushion assembly and through which air can flow (figs. 2-4 wherein air can flow through the apertures as needed).
Regarding Claim 7: Sullivan teaches an electronic device, comprising: a housing (fig. 1) defining a contact surface (figs. 1-3); and a cushion assembly (130) disposed on the contact surface (figs. 1-3), the cushion assembly comprising: a polymer structure (134), including: a laminar portion (156) defining an aperture (figs. 3-5); a tube structure (158) extending from a peripheral edge of the aperture (figs. 2-3), the tube structure defining a passageway extending through the cushion assembly (figs. 2-3); and a foam layer (146) disposed against the laminar portion (figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 8 (as best understood): Sullivan teaches the laminar portion is a first laminar portion (figs. 2-3); and the polymer structure includes a second laminar portion (figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 9: Sullivan teaches the foam layer is disposed between the first laminar portion and the second laminar portion (the foam layer extends between all of the laminar portions as shown in figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 10: Sullivan teaches the aperture is a first aperture (figs. 2-3); the second laminar portion defines a second aperture (figs. 2-3); and the tube structure extends from the first aperture to the second aperture (figs. 2-5).
Regarding Claim 11: Sullivan teaches the second laminar portion defines a third aperture in fluid communication with the foam layer (figs. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 12: Sullivan teaches the tube structure is configured to allow air to pass through the cushion assembly via the first aperture and the second aperture (figs. 2-4 wherein air can flow through the apertures as needed); and the third aperture defined by the second laminar portion, the third aperture defined adjacent to the foam (figs. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 13: Sullivan teaches a cushion assembly for a wearable electronic device, the cushion assembly comprising: a polymer structure (134), comprising: a laminar portion defining a first aperture and a second aperture (156); a first tube structure (158) extending from a peripheral edge of the first aperture (figs. 2-3); and a second tube structure (another 158) extending from a peripheral edge of the second aperture (figs. 2-3; and foam (137) disposed between the first tube structure and the second tube structure (figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 14: Sullivan teaches the first tube structure includes a sidewall having a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface (figs. 2-5); the first surface defines an empty conduit of the first tube structure (figs. 5); and the second surface defines an outer surface of the first tube structure in contact with the foam (figs. 2-5).
Regarding Claim 15: Sullivan teaches the foam is disposed against the laminar portion (figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 18: Sullivan teaches a third aperture defined by the laminar portion (figs. 2-3), wherein a first distance separating the first aperture from the second aperture is greater than a second distance separating the second aperture from the third aperture (figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 19: Sullivan teaches the polymer structure is molded as a single, unitary piece (figs. 2-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (10,133,305).
Regarding Claim 6: Sullivan lacks a specific teaching of the apertures of the set of apertures are non-uniformly spaced.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Sullivan by having the apertures of the set of apertures are non-uniformly spaced in order to allow for specifically targeted airflow and cooling wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the locations of the already disclosed apertures and it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 16: Sullivan lacks a specific teaching of the polymer structure comprises silicone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Sullivan by having the polymer structure comprises silicone in order to allow for a better cost effect value while still holding to the structural integrity of the overall apparatus wherein this would be accomplished merely by choosing the correct type of material and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 17: Sullivan lacks a specific teaching of a thickness of the foam is substantially equal to a height of the first tube structure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Sullivan by having a thickness of the foam is substantially equal to a height of the first tube structure in order to allow for a beneficial and stable connection between the layers allowing for a comfortable fit to the user wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the size of the already disclosed elements of the apparatus and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Regarding Claim 20: Sullivan lacks a specific teaching of the laminar portion is less than about 100 microns thick.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Sullivan by having the laminar portion is less than about 100 microns thick in order to allow for a beneficial and stable connection between the layers allowing for a comfortable fit to the user wherein this would be accomplished merely by changing the size of the already disclosed elements of the apparatus and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841