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 .
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Healy et al. (US20210352267A1), hereinafter referred to as Healy, in view of Okiebisu (US6707924Bl), hereinafter referred to as Okiebisu.
Regarding claim 1, Healy discloses head-mountable device comprising: a frame (¶ [0095] and Fig. 13 discloses a XR headset 920 comprising a structural enclosure supporting display and components, which reads on the claimed “frame”13) ; and
a head engager connected to the frame to form a continuous loop (¶[0095] and Fig. 13 the XR headset includes a headband 1306 configured to secure the XR headset to a wearer's head), the head engager being configured to connect to a tether connected to an accessory device (¶[0140] and Figs. 18A and 18B disclosing an accessory device (tethered collar accessory 1862) connected to the headset 920 by a tether 1864).
Healy does not explicitly disclose wherein the head engager is configured to:
in response to a first force applied to the tether with a first impulse, maintain the continuous loop; and
in response to a second force applied to the tether with a second impulse greater than the first impulse, separate the continuous loop.
However, Okiebisu from the same or similar endeavor of portable electronic equipment discloses wherein the head engager is configured to:
in response to a first force applied to the tether with a first impulse, maintain the continuous loop (Abstract and Col. 6:7-19 disclosing a connector adapted to normally maintain the cord loop and remain engaged with a predetermined force of retention); and
in response to a second force applied to the tether with a second impulse greater than the first impulse, separate the continuous loop (Abstract and Col. 6:7-19 disclosing that the connector disconnects the cord loop the moment it is applied with a larger pulling force than a predetermined force).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Healy to add the teachings of Okiebisu as above, in order to provide a portable electronic equipment holder adapted for carrying by hanging on the neck or any other part of a user's body as well as for immediate removal from on the user's body when a greater pulling force than predetermined is applied to the holder, to assure the safety of the user (Okiebisu, Col. 1: 48-53).
Regarding claim 2, Healy and Okiebisu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Healy discloses the head-mountable device of claim 1, wherein: the head engager comprises: multiple segments connectable to each other (Fig. 13 illustrating the XR headset including multiple straps portions coupled to the headset frame at different attachments points)
Healy does not explicitly disclose a variable lock; in response to the first force, the variable lock is configured to prevent the multiple segments of the head engager from separating; and in response to the second force, the variable lock is configured to allow the multiple segments of the head engager to separate from each other.
However, Okiebisu from the same or similar endeavor of portable electronic equipment discloses a variable lock; in response to the first force, the variable lock is configured to prevent the multiple segments of the head engager from separating; and in response to the second force, the variable lock is configured to allow the multiple segments of the head engager to separate from each other (Abstract disclosing a connector adapted to normally
maintain the cord loop and disconnect the cord loop the moment it is applied with a larger pulling force than a predetermined force; and Col. 5:60-58 disclosing When any of
the cords 11 and 12 is pulled with a large force, the male connector 41 will be disengaged).
The motivation for combining Healy and Okiebisu has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Healy and Okiebisu disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Healy does not explicitly disclose the head-mountable device of claim 2, wherein, in response to the first force applied to the tether with the first impulse, the variable lock is configured to secure the head engager such that the accessory device is released from the head engager.
However, Okiebisu from the same or similar endeavor of portable electronic equipment discloses the head-mountable device of claim 2, wherein, in response to the first force applied to the tether with the first impulse, the variable lock is configured to secure the head engager such that the accessory device is released from the head engager. (Abstract and Col. 6:7-19 disclosing connector adapted to normally maintain the cord loop and remain engaged with a predetermined force of retention wherein the connector disconnects the cord loop the moment it is applied with a larger pulling force than a predetermined force ).
The motivation for combining Healy and Okiebisu has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Healy and Okiebisu disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Healy discloses the head-mountable device of claim 2, wherein the multiple segments comprise a first segment and a second segment that are releasably engaged to each other with a segment connector, the multiple segments and the frame forming the continuous loop while the segment connector is engaged.(Fig. 13 illustrating the XR headset including multiple straps portions coupled to the headset frame at different attachments points))
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Healy, in view of Okiebisu, and further, in view of Allen (US7402147B1), hereinafter referred to as Allen
Regarding claim 4, Healy and Okiebisu disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Healy does not explicitly disclose the head-mountable device of claim 2, wherein the variable lock comprises a clip with a non-Newtonian fluid configured to selectively engage the tether.
However, Allen from the same or similar endeavor of portable equipment discloses the (Col. 5:66 – col. 6:16 and Abstract disclosing thickening non-Newtonian fluid)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Healy and Okiebisu to add the teachings of Allen as above, in order to improve safety and impulse discrimination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The instant invention is related to head-mountable devices with release mechanisms.
Applicant has uniquely claimed distinct features in the independent claim 7, which in combination with the other features are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious over the prior art of record. The distinct features include “a head engager comprising: a first segment comprising a tether connector; and a second segment comprising a variable lock; and
an accessory device comprising: a body containing accessory circuitry; a tether, wherein the tether connector of the first segment and the variable lock of the second segment are configured to engage the tether; and a body connector coupling the tether to the body, wherein the variable lock of the second segment is configured to transmit a force applied to the tether to either the first segment or the second segment based on an impulse associated with the force.”
Healy, the closest prior art of record, discloses many of the limitations of the claims. However, Healy, either, individually or in combination with other prior art of record (See PTO-892), fails to anticipate or render obvious the above-cited limitations.
The independent claims 16 recite features similar to those discussed above and therefore allowable for analogous reasons.
The dependent claims 8-15 and 17-20 are allowed for the same reasons as those supporting the allowability of the corresponding independent claims.
Claims 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486