DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, and 6-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant's argument that " For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits each element recited in the claims presented herein is indeed shown in the figures as filed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the drawing rejections are respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. The instant application only describes the ratchet mechanism and clutch mechanism in purely functional, multi-component terms (i.e., mechanisms comprising plural interacting parts), and does not identify them as single structural elements and/or discrete components. See drawing objections, specification objections, 112(a) rejection and 112(b) rejection below for further details.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning…and the clutch mechanism are indeed described with sufficient structure to perform the recited function and are not merely generic placeholders," the Examiner traverses. The instant application only describes the ratchet mechanism and clutch mechanism in purely functional, multi-component terms (i.e., mechanisms comprising plural interacting parts), and does not identify them as single structural elements and/or discrete components. See drawing objections, specification objections, 112(a) rejection and 112(b) rejection below for further details.
Examiner reminds the applicant that when the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ratchet mechanism and the clutch mechanism must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “link member 31(pinion 31a)” in para. [0017], “ratchet mechanism (dial stopper 33)” in para. [0036], “the size of the movable portion 30 (adjustment mechanism M)” in para. [0067], etc. A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 10-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claim 1, “the spiral spring is arranged with a center line of the spiral spring extends along a forward and rearward direction with respect to the holder as viewed in a top plan view” is grammatically incorrect.
With respect to Claim 10, the sentences recite “the clutch mechanism is switchable between a first state, in which the one or more clutch stoppers are in a working position to interlock the link member with the operation dial,” and it is unclear how the phrase “switchable” followed by functional language should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the claim limitations. “Switchable” implies a hypothetical or conditional scenario without clarifying whether the claimed limitation is a necessary or optional aspect of the head-mounted display. This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. Thus, this phrase does not establish the relationship between the switchable condition and the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: an adjustment mechanism, a ratchet mechanism, and a clutch mechanism that performs switching in Claims 1-4, and 6-16.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
“A part of the ratchet mechanism is integrally formed from the holder” in Claim 8 and “a part of the clutch mechanism is integrally formed from the holder” in Claim 9 recite subject matter that was not described in the as-filed specification. The instant application only describes the ratchet mechanism and clutch mechanism in purely functional, multi-component terms (i.e., mechanisms comprising plural interacting parts), and does not identify them as single structural elements and/or discrete components. The specification and drawings do not disclose any individual part of either mechanism as being formed from, or integral with, the holder. These limitations extract unspecified parts from each mechanism that were never structurally delineated into claimed elements and attribute specific structural relationships (e.g., integral formation with the holder) that are nowhere disclosed nor supported. Thus, the new matter raises doubt as to possession of the claimed invention, for the specification does not reasonably convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the joint inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 1 and 10, the limitation(s) “a ratchet mechanism defining a rotation direction of the operation dial to one direction” and “the ratchet mechanism limiting a rotation direction of the operation dial to a predefined direction” in Claim 10 include relative terminology which renders the claim(s) indefinite. For example, the term “predefined direction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The claim does not specify what the direction is (e.g., clockwise, counterclockwise, etc.) and the specification provides no antecedent basis or definition for what is “predefined” or how it is determined. There is a no way for a person having ordinary skill in the art to identify nor verify what constitutes the “predefined direction.” Examiner submits that the ratchet mechanism lacks clear structural correspondence, for the term is utilized as a functional label for multiple components, not as a defined structural element. Since no specific structure corresponding to the ratchet mechanism is identified in the as-filed specification and drawings, it is unclear what structure performs the limiting/defining or, for example, how the “predefined direction” is implemented. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the invention. All other limitations relating to the ratchet mechanism and overall adjustment mechanism are rendered indefinite by the use of the term(s) “ratchet mechanism defining/limiting” and “predefined direction.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions, and optional functionality of a HUD system.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. US 20070018908 A1 (herein after "Nakabayashi") in view of Bielefeld US 20060015986 A1 and King et al. US 20200121017 A1 (herein after "King").
With respect to Claim 1, Nakabayashi discloses a head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) comprising:
a main body (head mounted display body/apparatus body 1; [0023]) comprising a display unit (display device, such as a liquid crystal panel; [0023]); and
a mounting band (frame 2 that is integrated with or supports the head mounted display body 1; [0025]) coupled with (as seen in fig. 1) the main body (head mounted display body/apparatus body 1; [0023]),
wherein:
the mounting band (frame 2 that is integrated with or supports the head mounted display body 1; [0025]) comprises:
a right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]),
a left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]), and
an adjustment mechanism (left and right adjusters 4L and 4R; [0027]) comprising:
a link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]) held in engagement (via elastic band 6; [0029] & [0035]; fig. 4-6) with a rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and a rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]),
a holder (lever lock 14 serving to hold operating levers 5L and 5R in lock and unlock states; [0028], [0036]) accommodating a spring therein (spring forces lever lock 14 in projecting direction to side of operating lever 5; [0036]), the spring (spring forcing lever lock 14; [0036]) being configured to apply an elastic force (spring forces lever lock 14 in projecting direction to side of operating lever 5, connected to clutch 12; [0036]; fig. 5-6) to the link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]),
a ratchet mechanism (uses one-way clutch to allow fastening operation and prevents movement in loosening direction; [0046]),
a clutch mechanism (interlock mechanism and lock mechanism; [0043], mechanism comprising clutch gear 12; [0036]) enabling switching (via clutch gear 12; [0036]) between a first state in which the link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]) is interlocked (lock mechanism in lock state of backward movement; [0016]; fig. 5) and a second state in which the link member is not interlocked (lock mechanism in unlock state; [0017]; fig. 6).
Nakabayashi does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): an operation dial; the ratchet mechanism defining a rotation direction of the operation dial to one direction; the link member is interlocked with the operation dial, the link member is not interlocked with the operation dial.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bielefeld teaches flexible ratchet mechanism for the headband of protective headgear ([0012]), comprising, an adjustment knob and rotational element (37 and 36; [0037]); a ratchet mechanism (30; fig. 3; [0021], [0036]) defining a rotation of the adjustment knob and rotational element (37 and 36; [0037]) in a direction(s) (figs. 3-5); a ring gear (33; [0038]) is interlocked with (via respective spring teeth 41, 43 extending from each of arch portions 40, 42 of spring assembly mate with and engage teeth of ring gear 33, locking position; [0038], headband is locked absent manipulation of adjustment knob by wearer; [0007]) the adjustment knob and rotational element (37 and 36; [0037]), the ring gear (33; [0038]) is not interlocked with (when adjustment knob 37 and rotational element 36 are manually turned, spring teeth 41, 43 are forced over teeth of ring gear 33 by radially inward compression of arch portions 40, 42 of spring assembly; [0038]) the adjustment knob and rotational element (37 and 36; [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi to include the technical features of an operation dial that can be interlocked or not interlocked with a link member, for the purpose of enabling a wearer to overcome a spring force and effectuate lateral movement of overlapping rear portions within a headband assembly and providing adjustment of the size and fit of a headband, as taught by Bielefeld, ([0032], [0037-38]).
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a spiral spring; the spiral spring is arranged with a center line of the spiral spring extends along a forward and rearward direction with respect to the holder as viewed in a top plan view, and the ratchet mechanism and the clutch mechanism are arranged on a same side of the holder on an opposing side from the spiral spring.
However, in the same field of endeavor, King teaches a ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein a ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]) comprises an adjustment element (40; [0037]), rear portions (20, 24; [0037]) of a headband (10; [0037]), and a power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4). The power spring is in the form of a preloaded coil ([0038]) and its center (distal end 44b of spring 44; [0044]) is aligned extending along a forward and rearward direction from a top view (as seen in fig. 4) and with respect to an integral circumferential ridge (41; [0038]) projecting from a lateral face (40a; [0038]) of an adjustment element (40; [0038]) defining a cavity for the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4). King further teaches the ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]) further including a clutch mechanism, wherein the adjustment element (40; [0044]) and the power spring (44; [0044]) are held in a home position while overlapping rear portions (20, 24 of headband 10; [0044]) are positioned, such that a pinion (48; [0044]) engages respective rack gears (20b, 24b of overlapping rear portions 20, 24 of headband 10; [0044]). Thus, the ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]) and clutch mechanism included within the ratchet mechanism ([0044]) are arranged on the same side of the integral circumferential ridge (41; [0038]) projecting from a lateral face (40a; [0038]) of an adjustment element (40; [0038]) defining a cavity for power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4), and on an opposing side of the power spring (44; [0037-38]; as seen in figs. 4-6b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical features of comprising a power spring and having a ratchet and clutch mechanism arranged on the same side, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 2, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein
the rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and the rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]) are spaced apart from each other (8R and 8L spaced apart from each other as seen in fig. 2) in an upward and downward direction (as seen in fig. 2),
the link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]) is arranged between (as seen in fig. 2 & 5-6) the rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and the rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]);
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: the spiral spring is arranged side by side with the link member in the forward and rearward directions.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4) is arranged side-by-side with and adjustment element (40; [0037]) in a forward and rearward directions (as seen in fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical feature of comprising a power spring arranged beside an adjustment element, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value from a rotation of an adjustment element, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 3, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) according to claim 1, and a rear side (fig. 5-6) of the rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and the rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]).
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the spiral spring is arranged on a rear side of the rear portion of the right band portion and the rear portion of the left band portion.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4) and its center (distal end 44b of spring 44; [0044]) are arranged on a left rear portion (20; [0043-44]) and the right rear portion (24; [0043-44]) of the headband (10; [0037]; fig. 6a-b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical feature of comprising a power spring, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 4, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) according to claim 1, and the rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and the rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]).
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the spiral spring has a diameter greater than a width of the rear portion of the right band portion and the rear portion of the left band portion in upward and downward directions.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4) has a diameter greater than a width of a left rear portion (20; [0043-44]) and the right rear portion (24; [0043-44]) of the headband (10; [0037]; fig. 6a-b) in an upward and downward directions ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical feature of comprising a power spring, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 6, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) according to claim 1, the ratchet mechanism (uses one-way clutch to allow fastening operation and prevents movement in loosening direction; [0046]; Nakabayashi), the clutch mechanism (mechanism comprising clutch gear 12; [0036]; Nakabayashi), and the operation dial (adjustment knob 37 and rotational element 36; [0037]; Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld).
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the ratchet mechanism, the clutch mechanism, and the operation dial are arranged on a rear side of the spiral spring.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein a ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]), clutch mechanism (adjustment element 40 and power spring 44 held in home position while overlapping rear portions 20, 24 of headband 10 are positioned, such that pinion 48 engages respective rack gears 20b, 24b of overlapping rear portions 20, 24 of headband 10; [0044]), and knob (70 is operably connected to the adjustment element 40; [0037]) are arranged on the rear side of the power spring (44; [0037-38]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical features of comprising a power spring and comprising a ratchet and clutch mechanism with an operation dial to be arranged on the same side of a power spring, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 7, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein
a part of the ratchet mechanism (uses one-way clutch to allow fastening operation and prevents movement in loosening direction; [0046]) and a part of the clutch mechanism (mechanism comprising clutch gear 12; [0036]) are used in a shared manner (as seen in fig. 5-6; fastening and locking coincide, and unlocking and loosening coincide; [0048]; Nakabayashi).
With respect to Claim 8, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: a part of the ratchet mechanism is integrally formed from the holder.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), comprising an integral circumferential ridge (41; [0038]) projecting from a lateral face (40a; [0038]) of the adjustment element (40; [0038]) defines a cavity for the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4), wherein the ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]), is integrally formed from the cavity (certain internal components of the exemplary ratchet mechanism 30; [0036]; as seen in fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical feature of comprising a power spring accommodated in a cavity defined by an integral circumferential ridge, for the purpose of securing a power spring to an adjustment element and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]). Furthermore, Examiner reminds the applicant that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP § 2144.
With respect to Claim 9, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: a part of the clutch mechanism is integrally formed from the holder.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), comprising an integral circumferential ridge (41; [0038]) projecting from a lateral face (40a; [0038]) of the adjustment element (40; [0038]) defines a cavity for the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4), wherein the clutch mechanism (adjustment element 40 and power spring 44 held in home position while overlapping rear portions 20, 24 of headband 10 are positioned, such that pinion 48 engages respective rack gears 20b, 24b of overlapping rear portions 20, 24 of headband 10; [0044]) is integrally formed from the cavity ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical feature of comprising a power spring accommodated in a cavity defined by an integral circumferential ridge, for the purpose of securing a power spring to an adjustment element and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]). Furthermore, Examiner reminds the applicant that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP § 2144.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. US 20070018908 A1 (herein after "Nakabayashi") in view of Bielefeld US 20060015986 A1.
With respect to Claim 10, Nakabayashi discloses a head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) comprising:
a main body (head mounted display body/apparatus body 1; [0023]) comprising a display unit (display device, such as a liquid crystal panel; [0023]); and
a mounting band (frame 2 that is integrated with or supports the head mounted display body 1; [0025]) coupled with (as seen in fig. 1) the main body (head mounted display body/apparatus body 1; [0023]),
wherein:
the mounting band (frame 2 that is integrated with or supports the head mounted display body 1; [0025]) comprises:
a right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) comprising a right portion (fig. 2) of the mounting band (frame 2 that is integrated with or supports the head mounted display body 1; [0025]),
a left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]) comprising a left portion (fig. 2) of the mounting band (frame 2 that is integrated with or supports the head mounted display body 1; [0025]),
an adjustment mechanism (left and right adjusters 4L and 4R; [0027]) comprising:
a link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]) held in engagement (via elastic band 6; [0029] & [0035]; fig. 4-6) with a rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and a rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]),
a ratchet mechanism (uses one-way clutch to allow fastening operation and prevents movement in loosening direction; [0046]),
a clutch mechanism (interlock mechanism and lock mechanism; [0043], mechanism comprising clutch gear 12; [0036]) comprising a clutch member (clutch gear 12; [0036]), one or more clutch stoppers (operating levers 5L and 5R; [0028]),
the clutch mechanism (interlock mechanism and lock mechanism; [0043], mechanism comprising clutch gear 12; [0036]) is switchable (via clutch gear 12; [0036]) between a first state (lock mechanism in lock state of backward movement; [0016]; fig. 5), in which the one or more clutch stoppers are in a working position (lever 5 in the lock and unlock states; [0036]) to interlock the link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]), and a second state (lock mechanism in unlock state; [0017]; fig. 6), in which the one or more clutch stoppers (operating levers 5L and 5R; [0028]) are in a cancellation position (clutch gear 12 rotates only in the "r" direction and does not rotate in the "s" direction; [0037]; fig. 5-6; operating lever 5 rotated in "m" direction, disengaging clutch gear 12; [0039]) wherein the link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]) is not interlocked (unlocking force for backward rotating of operating lever 5 serves to loosen the head H; [0039]).
Nakabayashi does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): an operation dial; the ratchet mechanism comprising a dial stopper and a gear portion, the ratchet mechanism limiting a rotation direction of the operation dial to a predefined direction, the clutch mechanism comprising the gear portion, the gear portion being shared with the ratchet mechanism; the link member is interlocked with the operation dial, the link member is not interlocked with the operation dial.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bielefeld teaches flexible ratchet mechanism for the headband of protective headgear ([0012]), comprising, an adjustment knob and rotational element (37 and 36; [0037]); a ratchet mechanism (30; fig. 3; [0021], [0036]) comprising defined boundaries, wherein outside wall segments (13e, 13f; [0037]) of an inner housing section (34; [0037]) are fastened to corresponding portions of walls of outer housing section (32; [0037]) using a snap-fit relationship for limiting movement ([0017]), and rack gears of overlapping rear end portions (13e, 13f of headband 13; [0037]); the ratchet mechanism (30; fig. 3; [0021], [0036]) defining a limiting rotation of the adjustment knob and rotational element (37 and 36; [0037]) in a direction(s) (figs. 3-5); a clutch mechanism (mechanism that allows for adjustment of size and fit of headband; [0032], [0037-38]) comprising the rack gears of overlapping rear end portions (13e, 13f of headband 13; [0037]) shared with the ratchet mechanism (30; fig. 3; [0021], [0036]); a ring gear (33; [0038]) is interlocked with (via respective spring teeth 41, 43 extending from each of arch portions 40, 42 of spring assembly mate with and engage teeth of ring gear 33, locking position; [0038], headband is locked absent manipulation of adjustment knob by wearer; [0007]) the adjustment knob and rotational element (37 and 36; [0037]), the ring gear (33; [0038]) is not interlocked with (when adjustment knob 37 and rotational element 36 are manually turned, spring teeth 41, 43 are forced over teeth of ring gear 33 by radially inward compression of arch portions 40, 42 of spring assembly; [0038]) the adjustment knob and rotational element (37 and 36; [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi to include the technical features of an operation dial that can be interlocked or not interlocked with a link member, and a ratchet and clutch mechanism sharing multiple components, for the purpose of enabling a wearer to overcome a spring force and effectuate lateral movement of overlapping rear portions within a headband assembly and providing adjustment of the size and fit of a headband, as taught by Bielefeld, ([0032], [0037-38]).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi et al. US 20070018908 A1 (herein after "Nakabayashi") in view of Bielefeld US 20060015986 A1 as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of King et al. US 20200121017 A1 (herein after "King").
With respect to Claim 11, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld teaches the head-mounted display of claim 10, wherein: the adjustment mechanism (left and right adjusters 4L and 4R; [0027]) further comprises a holder (lever lock 14 serving to hold operating levers 5L and 5R in lock and unlock states; [0028], [0036]) for accommodating a spring therein (spring forces lever lock 14 in projecting direction to side of operating lever 5; [0036]), the spring is configured to apply an elastic force (spring forces lever lock 14 in projecting direction to side of operating lever 5, connected to clutch 12; [0036]; fig. 5-6) to the link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]), the ratchet mechanism (uses one-way clutch to allow fastening operation and prevents movement in loosening direction; [0046]), and the clutch mechanism (interlock mechanism and lock mechanism; [0043], mechanism comprising clutch gear 12; [0036]; Nakabayashi).
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a spiral spring; and the ratchet mechanism and the clutch mechanism are arranged on a same side of the holder on an opposing side from the spiral spring.
However, in the same field of endeavor, King teaches a ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein a ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]) comprises an adjustment element (40; [0037]), rear portions (20, 24; [0037]) of a headband (10; [0037]), and a power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4). The power spring is in the form of a preloaded coil ([0038]) and its center (distal end 44b of spring 44; [0044]) is aligned extending along a forward and rearward direction from a top view (as seen in fig. 4) and with respect to an integral circumferential ridge (41; [0038]) projecting from a lateral face (40a; [0038]) of an adjustment element (40; [0038]) defining a cavity for the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4). King further teaches the ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]) further including a clutch mechanism, wherein the adjustment element (40; [0044]) and the power spring (44; [0044]) are held in a home position while overlapping rear portions (20, 24 of headband 10; [0044]) are positioned, such that a pinion (48; [0044]) engages respective rack gears (20b, 24b of overlapping rear portions 20, 24 of headband 10; [0044]). Thus, the ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]) and clutch mechanism included within the ratchet mechanism ([0044]) are arranged on the same side of the integral circumferential ridge (41; [0038]) projecting from a lateral face (40a; [0038]) of an adjustment element (40; [0038]) defining a cavity for power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4), and on an opposing side of the power spring (44; [0037-38]; as seen in figs. 4-6b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical features of comprising a power spring and having a ratchet and clutch mechanism arranged on the same side, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 12, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) of claim 11, and the rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and the rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]; Nakabayashi).
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the spiral spring has a diameter greater than a width of the rear portion of the right band portion and the rear portion of the left band portion in upward and downward directions.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4) has a diameter greater than a width of a left rear portion (20; [0043-44]) and the right rear portion (24; [0043-44]) of the headband (10; [0037]; fig. 6a-b) in an upward and downward directions ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical feature of comprising a power spring, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 13, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) of claim 11.
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein a center line of the spiral spring extends along a forward and rearward direction with respect to the holder as viewed in a top plan view.
However, in the same field of endeavor, King teaches a ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein a ratchet mechanism (30; [0037]) comprises an adjustment element (40; [0037]), rear portions (20, 24; [0037]) of a headband (10; [0037]), and a power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4). The power spring is in the form of a preloaded coil ([0038]) and its center (distal end 44b of spring 44; [0044]) is aligned extending along a forward and rearward direction from a top view (as seen in fig. 4) and with respect to an integral circumferential ridge (41; [0038]) projecting from a lateral face (40a; [0038]) of an adjustment element (40; [0038]) defining a cavity for the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical features of comprising a power spring, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 14, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) of claim 11, wherein
the rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and the rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]) are spaced apart from each other (8R and 8L spaced apart from each other as seen in fig. 2) in an upward and downward direction (as seen in fig. 2; Nakabayashi),
the link member (clutch gear 12; [0036]) is arranged between (as seen in fig. 2 & 5-6) the rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and the rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]; Nakabayashi);
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the spiral spring is arranged side by side with the link member in forward and rearward directions.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4) is arranged side-by-side with and adjustment element (40; [0037]) in a forward and rearward directions (as seen in fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical feature of comprising a power spring arranged beside an adjustment element, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value from a rotation of an adjustment element, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 15, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) of claim 11, and a rear side (fig. 5-6) of the rear portion (right sub-band 8R extend to back frame portion 2B through right frame portion 2R; [0030]) of the right band portion (right frame portion 2R; [0027]) and the rear portion (left sub-band 8L extend to back frame portion 2B through left frame portion 2L; [0030]) of the left band portion (left frame portion 2L; [0027]).
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the spiral spring is arranged on a rear side of the rear portion of the right band portion and the rear portion of the left band portion.
However, King further teaches the ratchet mechanism for a protective helmet headband ([0037]), wherein the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4) and its center (distal end 44b of spring 44; [0044]) are arranged on a left rear portion (20; [0043-44]) and the right rear portion (24; [0043-44]) of the headband (10; [0037]; fig. 6a-b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the head mounted apparatus of Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld to include the technical feature of comprising a power spring, for the purpose of setting a correct torque value, storing rotational energy, and providing a torque that results in an increase or decrease of a headband circumference, as taught by King ([0017], [0037], and [0044]).
With respect to Claim 16, Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld and King teaches the head-mounted display (head mounted display as a head mounted apparatus; [0022]; fig. 1) of claim 11, the holder (lever lock 14 serving to hold operating levers 5L and 5R in lock and unlock states; [0028], [0036]); Nakabayashi) and the gear portion (rack gears of overlapping rear end portions (13e, 13f of headband 13; [0037]; Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld).
Nakabayashi in view of Bielefeld does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the gear portion is integrally formed from the holder.
However, King further teaches respective rack gears (20b, 24b of overlapping rear portions 20, 24 of headband 10; [0044]) being integrally formed (within cavity; [0037-38], [0043]; figs. 6a-6b) from the integral circumferential ridge (41; [0038]) projecting from a lateral face (40a; [0038]) of an adjustment element (40; [0038]) defining a cavity for the power spring (44; [0037-38]; fig. 4). Furthermore, Examiner reminds the applicant that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP § 2144.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 24 March 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872