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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species Y in the reply filed on September 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species E and Subspecies E6 in the reply filed on September 19, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no search burden in examining all of the subject matter supported by the group of Species E1 through E6 (Figs. 21A to 21H) and Applicant requests Examiner treat Species E and Subspecies E1 through E6 and Species F as a single species. This is not found persuasive because there is both a search burden and an examination burden on examination of all of the identified subspecies E1-E6 and species F together. All of these subspecies E1-E6 and species F recite mutually exclusive iterations of arrangements of variations in the cushion’s chassis structure and stiffness portion placements.
Species E (Fig. 21A): first portion 2123a is half of the cross-section and has no voids; second portion 2123b is the other half of the cross-section and has voids
Species E1 (Fig. 21B): foam material 2128 portion and voids portion both define the thickness direction equally
Species E2 (Fig. 21C): foam material portion overlaps above voids portion
Species E3 (Fig. 21D): voids portion overlaps above foam material portion
Species E4 (Fig. 21E): voids portion sandwiched between two foam material portions
Species E5 (Fig. 21F): foam material portion tapers above voids portion which tapers below in a middle section
Species E6 (Fig. 21G): foam material portion tapers below voids portion which tapers above in a middle section
Species F (Fig. 21H): a transition portion 2123c is present that is not present in Species E’s Fig. 21A
If these were all searched and examined together, there could potentially be many different prior art references and associated rejections applied to the claims, such as the independent claims requiring different base references just to be able to address the limitations of the divergent subject matter of the claims dependent therefrom. Examiner acknowledges that the current set of claims may not be extensive in details regarding all of the different species and sub-species that have been disclosed, but the restriction requirement ensures that all future rounds of prosecution remain focused on a single inventive concept to be searched and examined. Examiner reminds Applicant that upon indication of allowability of a generic claim, any non-elected claims directed to non-elected subject matter will be considered for rejoinder at such time.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 16 and 17 include multiple components, but each having no associated bracket. It appears that a bracket should surround all of the components in each of the figures, with the bracket identified as “1450” in Fig. 16 and “1460” in Fig. 17, as one potential remedy.
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in ¶ 0005, Applicant recites “The central upper subportion may be configured to engage with the fourth stiffness a central upper facial subregion between the right upper facial subregion and the left upper facial subregion”. This language is confusing because it is stating that a structural element is configured to engage with a property (i.e. fourth stiffness), rather than with another structural element or outside element (i.e. user’s facial portion(s)). It appears some of the emphasized language has been misplaced, and perhaps the language should recite “The central upper subportion (with the fourth stiffness) may be configured to engage a central upper facial subregion between the right upper facial subregion and the left upper facial subregion”, if the above interpretation is accurate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4: the phrase “of a user” should be added before “to block”
Claim 3, line 6: the phrase “of the user” should be added before “above”
Claim 3, line 7: the phrase “of the user” should be added after “left eye”
Claim 3, line 14: the phrase “of the user” should be added before “below”
Claim 3, line 14: “a user” should recite “the user”
This suggestion is made in conjunction with the first bullet point above, which first establishes antecedence for reference to “a user” and their associated anatomy
Claim 11, line 4: the phrase “of a user” should be added before “to block”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “wherein the central upper subportion is configured to engage with the fourth stiffness a central upper facial subregion between the right upper facial subregion and the left upper facial subregion” (emphasis added). This language is confusing because it is stating that a structural element is configured to engage with a property (i.e. fourth stiffness), rather than with another structural element or outside element (i.e. user’s facial portion(s)). It appears some of the emphasized language has been misplaced, and perhaps the language should recite “wherein the central upper subportion with the fourth stiffness is configured to engage a central upper facial subregion between the right upper facial subregion and the left upper facial subregion”. Since it has already been established that the central upper subportion has “a fourth stiffness” (lines 3-4 of claim 3), Applicant may consider more concisely reciting “wherein the central upper subportion is configured to engage with a central upper facial subregion between the right upper facial subregion and the left upper facial subregion”, (i.e. deleting “with the fourth stiffness”) if the above interpretation is accurate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatfield et al. (hereinafter “Hatfield-706”) (US 2021/0041706).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hatfield-706 discloses a wearable device (head-mounted display unit #100), comprising: a support (display assembly #110 is a support); and a cushion (facial interface #130 is a cushion; ¶ 0042 describes its portions providing comfort for a wearer’s face, when worn) that is coupled to the support (¶ 0037 states that the facial interface #130 is fixedly or removably coupled with the display assembly #110) and configured to engage an upper facial region, a lower facial region, and side facial regions to block environmental light (¶ 0042 describes the portions of the facial interface being configured to rest against the user’s face’s regions; ¶ 0038 provides additional details about the regions of the face being contacted, in use; Examiner notes the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the cushion including: a first portion that is configured to engage the upper facial region (upper portion #240 is a first portion capable of engaging the upper facial region #40; see Fig. 2A; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the first portion having a first stiffness (¶ 0048 describes stiffness for the upper portion #240), a second portion configured to engage the lower facial region (lower portion #260 is a second portion capable of engaging the lower facial region #60; see Fig. 2A), the second portion having a second stiffness (¶ 0048 describes stiffness for the lower portion #260), and the first stiffness is at least four times greater than the second stiffness (¶ 0048, first sentence gives an example of the upper normal stiffness of the upper portion being two, three, four or more times stiffer than the lower normal stiffness of the lower portion), and third portions that are configured to engage the side facial regions (side portions #250 are capable of engaging side facial regions #50; Fig. 2A).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drinkwater (US 2017/0082859).
Regarding independent claim 17, Drinkwater discloses a wearable device (head mounted display #100) comprising: a support (facial interface assembly #110, which has a spacer frame #120 (i.e. support)); and a cushion (face gasket #122 is a cushion) that is coupled to the support (¶ 0021 discloses that the face gasket is removably attached to the spacer frame), the cushion including a molded foam structure having a first portion and a second portion (high-density foam layer #164 is a first portion; low-density foam layer #166 is a second portion; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the verb term "mold" (i.e. “molded” being a past-tense version of an object that has had a molding action applied to it) is very broad and has a definition of "[t]o form into a particular shape; give shape to" (Verb Defn. No. 1.b. of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); i.e. the face gasket #122 has a formed shape, rendering it “molded” inasmuch as has been structurally defined in the claim), the first portion having a first density (high-density foam layer #164 has at least some measurable density), and the second portion having a second density (low-density foam layer #166 has at least some measurable density), wherein the first density is greater than the second density (‘high-density” foam has a greater density than “low-density” foam; claim 1 of Drinkwater discloses that the second foam density is lower than the first foam density, when describing the foam layers of the face gasket).
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 1-4 (claim 3 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield et al. (hereinafter “Hatfield-453”) (US 2020/0233453) in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) (WO 2023/014348 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hatfield-453 discloses a wearable device (head-mounted display #100; see Figs. 8 and 8A), comprising: a support (display unit #110 is a support); and a cushion (facial interface #830 is a cushion; facial interfaces disclosed in Hatfield-453 are configured to provide user comfort and stabilize the head-mounted display on the face of the user (¶ 0003, 0038); Figs. 8 and 8A) that is coupled to the support (see Abstract; third sentence of Hatfield-453) and configured to engage an upper facial region, a lower facial region, and side facial regions to block environmental light (see Fig. 8 and 8A; ¶ 0081-0082 of Hatfield-453; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); ¶ 0006 describes blocking environmental light from the eyes of the user), the cushion including: a first portion (see Fig. 8; the four instances of discrete engagement regions #832 are collectively a first portion; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)) that is configured to engage the upper facial region (¶ 0081 describes how the discrete regions #832 are configured to apply different amounts of force or pressure to different areas of the user’s face; the top four instances of #832 in Fig. 8 are shown to be configured to engage the arbitrary upper facial region of the user), the first portion having a first stiffness (¶ 0081 describes that the structures #834a can be foam blocks, which has some amount of stiffness attributed thereto), a second portion (see lower instances of #832 in Fig. 8) configured to engage the lower facial region (lower instances of #832 in Fig. 8 are shown to be located to be able to engage an arbitrary lower facial region of the user), the second portion having a second stiffness (¶ 0081 describes that the structures #834a (while not all regions’ elastomeric structures #834a are labeled in Fig. 8A, the “dot-dot lines” that depict the discrete regions that are occupied by the elastomeric structures carry over from Fig. 8 to 8A) can be foam blocks, which has some amount of stiffness attributed thereto), and third portions (see left and right side instances of #832 in Fig. 8) that are configured to engage the side facial regions (¶ 0081 describes how the discrete regions #832 are configured to apply different amounts of force or pressure to different areas of the user’s face; the left and right side instances of #832 in Fig. 8 are shown to be configured to engage the arbitrary side facial regions, respectively, of the user). Hatfield-453 is silent to specifying how much greater the stiffness of the first portion is relative to the second portion’s stiffness (although, Hatfield-453 does teach that the facial interface #130 may be configured to engage bony structures (such as the forehead area) with greater force/pressure than soft tissue regions (such as the temples, cheeks or sinus regions) of the user), and it cannot be determined from the Hatfield-453 disclosure alone whether the first stiffness is at least four times greater than the second stiffness.
Kim teaches a face mask for fitting on a face of a user, wherein the face mask includes regions having different stiffness levels, wherein a highest stiffness level can be four times that of the lowest stiffness level (see “Embodiment 20” on Page 11 of Kim and claim 20 on Page 16 of Kim, which describes a highest stiffness level and a lowest stiffness level, wherein the highest stiffness level is preferably four times that of the lowest stiffness level).
Hatfield-453 and Kim teach analogous inventions in the field of masks that engage portions of the face. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have designed the foam blocks in at least some of the top four instances of #832 in Hatfield-453 (such as the left-most and right-most instances above the majority of eye orbital bones in Fig. 8) to have a stiffness level four times the stiffness level of the lower and side instances of #832 in Fig. 8, as taught by Kim, in order to apply the desired effect of having higher pressure/force applied to the bony areas (such as at least part of the forehead) and lower pressure/force applied to the soft tissue areas (such as the temples, cheek and sinus regions) of the user (see ¶ 0081, last two sentences of Hatfield-453), and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (i.e. “at least four times greater” is a range of the first stiffness being ≥ 4 times the second stiffness) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the third portions have a third stiffness (the side portions of #832 would also be formed of foam blocks, which have some degree of stiffness), the first stiffness being at least four times greater than the third stiffness (via the modification described above, since the side portions are designed to cover the temples and exemplified by Hatfield-453 as being a soft tissue example (relative to the bony forehead example), the modification made to address claim 1 above would also address that the side regions’ temple-covering elements #832 would also be less stiff than the laterally-aligned forehead elements #832 by a factor of 4 times, with a similar stiffness of the lower instances of #832, as compared to the top lateral elements’ #832 “first” stiffness level).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and that the first portion includes a right upper subportion having the first stiffness, a left upper subportion having the first stiffness (Fig. 8 shows there are two lateral elements #832 on the brow area, each being a left upper subportion and a right upper subportion, respectively), and a central upper subportion having a fourth stiffness (the two inner elements #832 at the brow area are, together, a central upper subportion; since the elements #832 are made of foam, they have some amount of stiffness (i.e. the center two brow instances #832 would be a fourth stiffness)), wherein the right upper subportion and the left upper subportion are configured to engage, respectively, a right upper facial subregion and a left upper facial subregion above, respectively, a right eye and a left eye, wherein the central upper subportion is configured to engage […] a central upper facial subregion between the right upper facial subregion and the left upper facial subregion (as shown in Fig. 8), and wherein the second portion includes a right lower subportion having the second stiffness and a left lower subportion having the second stiffness (Fig. 8 shows there are two lateral elements #832 on the bottom cheek area, each being a left lower subportion and a right lower subportion, respectively; since they are made of the softer foam for engaging with soft tissue, they have the second stiffness described above), wherein the right lower subportion and the left lower subportion are configured to engage, respectively, a right lower facial subregion and a left lower facial subregion below, respectively, the right eye and the left eye of a user (as shown in Fig. 8). Hatfield-453, as noted above, does not go into explicit detail regarding the magnitude of difference in the stiffness of the discrete elements #832. However, since there is a shallow inwardly-curved indentation between the left and right brow on a typical human face, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the softer stiffness foam in the middle two instances of the top elements #832 in order for the mask to better seal the space around the eyes (thus blocking light coming from above, more effectively), since a softer foam material would be able to conform to the aforementioned brow indentation than would a more rigid foam, and it would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have merely used the same softer foam for those two middle top instances of #832 as the side and lower facial regions’ soft foam, which (via the modification described when addressing claim 1 above) have 4 times less stiffness than the stiffer lateral brow elements #832.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the first portion of the cushion includes a first foam material that provides the first stiffness, and the second portion of the cushion includes a second foam material that provides the second stiffness (as explained above, Hatfield-453 describes that the discrete regions #832 can be elastomeric structures, such as foam blocks; the foam blocks that define the first portion would have the first stiffness; the foam blocks that define the second portion would have the second stiffness).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield-453 in view of Kim as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Hammer et al. (hereinafter “Hammer”) (US 2021/0100969).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kim, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claims 1 and 4, as set forth above, but it cannot be determined whether the first foam material and the second foam material have different densities and are formed from a common material type (claim 5) or wherein the first foam material and the second foam material are formed from different material types (claim 6).
Hammer teaches a face mask with a seal made of foam, wherein there are portions with different densities (¶ 0191 of Hammer). Hammer teaches that the portions with different densities may be different types of foam or the same type of foam (¶ 0191 of Hammer).
Modified Hatfield-453 and Hammer teach analogous inventions in the field of masks for contacting the face. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the first and second foam materials with different densities from either a common type of foam, or from a different type of foam, as taught by Hammer, in order to provide alternative known materials for the facial interface and its different stiffness portions to achieve, in either case, a comfortable seal on the user’s face, in use.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu et al. (hereinafter “Kohatsu-664”) (US 2016/0345664).
Regarding independent claim 11, Hatfield-453 discloses a wearable device (head-mounted display #100; see Figs. 8 and 8A), comprising: a support (display unit #110 is a support); and a cushion (facial interface #830 is a cushion; facial interfaces disclosed in Hatfield-453 are configured to provide user comfort and stabilize the head-mounted display on the face of the user (¶ 0003, 0038); Figs. 8 and 8A) that is coupled to the support (see Abstract; third sentence of Hatfield-453) and configured to engage an upper facial region, a lower facial region, and side facial regions to block environmental light (see Fig. 8 and 8A; ¶ 0081-0082 of Hatfield-453; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); ¶ 0006 describes blocking environmental light from the eyes of the user), the cushion including: a first portion that is configured to engage the upper facial region (see Figs. 8 and 8A; the four instances of discrete engagement regions #832 are collectively a first portion; ¶ 0081-0082 of Hatfield-453; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the first portion having a first stiffness (¶ 0081 describes that the structures #834a can be foam blocks, which has some amount of stiffness attributed thereto), a second portion (see lower instances of #832 in Fig. 8) configured to engage the lower facial region (lower instances of #832 in Fig. 8 are shown to be located to be able to engage an arbitrary lower facial region of the user), the second portion having a second stiffness (¶ 0081 describes that the structures #834a (while not all regions’ elastomeric structures #834a are labeled in Fig. 8A, the “dot-dot lines” that depict the discrete regions that are occupied by the elastomeric structures carry over from Fig. 8 to 8A) can be foam blocks, which has some amount of stiffness attributed thereto), the first stiffness is greater than the second stiffness (Hatfield-453 teaches that the facial interface #130 may be configured to engage bony structures (such as the forehead area) with greater force/pressure than soft tissue regions (such as the temples, cheeks or sinus regions) of the user, which is indicative of a greater stiffness in the first portion than in the second portion, with respect to the stiffness of the foam material), but is silent to voids being formed in the second portion to define the second stiffness.
Kohatsu-664 teaches a cushioning material for being worn by a user, wherein the cushioning material can include regions of varying force responsiveness (¶ 0045 of Kohatsu-664). Kohatsu-664 teaches that the varying regions of force responsiveness is created by the presence of differently-sized and/or differently-oriented aperture patterns in the cushioning element, due to the inclusion of voids to provide softer and/or cushioned regions in the portions that include the apertures (¶ 0036 of Kohatsu-664), as compared to regions that are without apertures (¶ 0039 of Kohatsu-664), wherein the material can include foams (¶ 0093 of Kohatsu-664). While most of Kohatsu-664’s disclosure is directed to footwear soles, it is indicated that the inventive concepts can be utilized in various articles of apparel (¶ 0027 of Kohatsu-664).
Hatfield-453 and Kohatsu-664 teach analogous inventions in the field of apparel with cushioning elements. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the foam material with the variations of aperture patterns taught by Kohatsu-664 as the material of choice for the foam in the facial interface of Hatfield-453 in order to provide the variations in stiffness that can apply force/pressure in different amounts to the different parts of the face being contacted by the device. As a result of the modification, the regions for the sides and bottom would have apertures included throughout (i.e. voids would impart the softer second stiffness for the second portion) to render those regions softer for better comfort for the wearer, as compared to the forehead regions that are bonier, as indicated by Hatfield-453.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu-664, as applied to claim 11 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as set forth above, and further that the cushion includes a foam material that provides the first stiffness in the first portion of the cushion, and the foam material and the voids cooperate to provide the second stiffness in the second portion of the cushion (as noted above, Kohatsu-664 teaches that its cushioning element can include foam, with apertures formed therein to provide a softer force-responsiveness (i.e. less stiffness) where the apertures are located as compared to regions without apertures (i.e. apertures constituting the voids)).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu-664, as applied to claims 11 and 12 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claims 11 and 12, as set forth above, and further that the voids extend through the foam material from a front surface of the foam material to the support (Kohatsu-664 discloses that the apertures (i.e. voids) have two opposite ends that are open (¶ 0037 of Kohatsu-664), which indicates that the voids in modified Hatfield-453 would extend through the whole thickness of the foam from a front surface thereof to the opposite surface that would be attached to the display unit #110 (i.e. support)).
Claims 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu et al. (hereinafter “Kohatsu-667”) (US 2016/0345667).
Regarding independent claim 11, Hatfield-453 discloses a wearable device (head-mounted display #100; see Figs. 8 and 8A), comprising: a support (display unit #110 is a support); and a cushion (facial interface #830 is a cushion; facial interfaces disclosed in Hatfield-453 are configured to provide user comfort and stabilize the head-mounted display on the face of the user (¶ 0003, 0038); Figs. 8 and 8A) that is coupled to the support (see Abstract; third sentence of Hatfield-453) and configured to engage an upper facial region, a lower facial region, and side facial regions to block environmental light (see Fig. 8 and 8A; ¶ 0081-0082 of Hatfield-453; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); ¶ 0006 describes blocking environmental light from the eyes of the user), the cushion including: a first portion that is configured to engage the upper facial region (see Figs. 8 and 8A; the four instances of discrete engagement regions #832 are collectively a first portion; ¶ 0081-0082 of Hatfield-453; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the first portion having a first stiffness (¶ 0081 describes that the structures #834a can be foam blocks, which has some amount of stiffness attributed thereto), a second portion (see lower instances of #832 in Fig. 8) configured to engage the lower facial region (lower instances of #832 in Fig. 8 are shown to be located to be able to engage an arbitrary lower facial region of the user), the second portion having a second stiffness (¶ 0081 describes that the structures #834a (while not all regions’ elastomeric structures #834a are labeled in Fig. 8A, the “dot-dot lines” that depict the discrete regions that are occupied by the elastomeric structures carry over from Fig. 8 to 8A) can be foam blocks, which has some amount of stiffness attributed thereto), the first stiffness is greater than the second stiffness (Hatfield-453 teaches that the facial interface #130 may be configured to engage bony structures (such as the forehead area) with greater force/pressure than soft tissue regions (such as the temples, cheeks or sinus regions) of the user, which is indicative of a greater stiffness in the first portion than in the second portion, with respect to the stiffness of the foam material), but is silent to voids being formed in the second portion to define the second stiffness.
Kohatsu-667 teaches a cushioning material for being worn by a user, wherein the cushioning material can include regions of varying force responsiveness (¶ 0045 of Kohatsu-667). Kohatsu-667 teaches that the varying regions of force responsiveness is created by the presence of differently-sized and/or differently-oriented aperture patterns in the cushioning element, due to the inclusion of voids to provide softer and/or cushioned regions in the portions that include the apertures (¶ 0036 of Kohatsu-667), as compared to regions that are without apertures (¶ 0065 of Kohatsu-667), wherein the material can include foams (¶ 0087 of Kohatsu-667). While most of Kohatsu-667’s disclosure is directed to footwear soles, it is indicated that the inventive concepts can be utilized in various articles of apparel (¶ 0027 of Kohatsu-667).
Hatfield-453 and Kohatsu-667 teach analogous inventions in the field of apparel with cushioning elements. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the foam material with the variations of aperture patterns taught by Kohatsu-667 as the material of choice for the foam in the facial interface of Hatfield-453 in order to provide the variations in stiffness that can apply force/pressure in different amounts to the different parts of the face being contacted by the device. As a result of the modification, the regions for the sides and bottom would have apertures included throughout (i.e. voids would impart the softer second stiffness for the second portion) to render those regions softer for better comfort for the wearer, as compared to the forehead regions that are bonier, as indicated by Hatfield-453.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu-667, as applied to claim 11 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as set forth above, and further that the cushion includes a foam material that provides the first stiffness in the first portion of the cushion, and the foam material and the voids cooperate to provide the second stiffness in the second portion of the cushion (as noted above, Kohatsu-667 teaches that its cushioning element can include foam, with apertures formed therein to provide a softer force-responsiveness (i.e. less stiffness) where the apertures are located as compared to regions without apertures (i.e. apertures constituting the voids)).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu-667, as applied to claims 11 and 12 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claims 11 and 12, as set forth above, and further that the voids extend partially through the foam material (Kohatsu-667 discloses that the apertures (i.e. voids) have two opposite ends, one being open and one being closed (¶ 0037 of Kohatsu-667), which indicates that the voids in modified Hatfield-453 would extend partially through the whole thickness of the foam).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu-667, as applied to claim 11 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as set forth above, and further that the cushion includes a transition portion in which the voids are configured to define a gradual stiffness transition between the first stiffness and the second stiffness (Kohatsu-667 teaches that the cushion element includes a transition portion (see Fig. 5) wherein the voids’ lengths gradually decrease from a longest length at the edges of the element to a shortest length at the middle of the element, wherein it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied this same effect in the modified device of Hatfield-453 in order to transition from the higher stiffness region to a lower stiffness region in the facial interface (i.e. cushion), which would reasonably be expected to create a more conforming seal around the face, as compared to regions that would more abruptly change in stiffness when transitioning between one another).
Claims 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu et al. (hereinafter “Kohatsu-666”) (US 2016/0345666).
Regarding independent claim 11, Hatfield-453 discloses a wearable device (head-mounted display #100; see Figs. 8 and 8A), comprising: a support (display unit #110 is a support); and a cushion (facial interface #830 is a cushion; facial interfaces disclosed in Hatfield-453 are configured to provide user comfort and stabilize the head-mounted display on the face of the user (¶ 0003, 0038); Figs. 8 and 8A) that is coupled to the support (see Abstract; third sentence of Hatfield-453) and configured to engage an upper facial region, a lower facial region, and side facial regions to block environmental light (see Fig. 8 and 8A; ¶ 0081-0082 of Hatfield-453; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); ¶ 0006 describes blocking environmental light from the eyes of the user), the cushion including: a first portion that is configured to engage the upper facial region (see Figs. 8 and 8A; the four instances of discrete engagement regions #832 are collectively a first portion; ¶ 0081-0082 of Hatfield-453; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the first portion having a first stiffness (¶ 0081 describes that the structures #834a can be foam blocks, which has some amount of stiffness attributed thereto), a second portion (see lower instances of #832 in Fig. 8) configured to engage the lower facial region (lower instances of #832 in Fig. 8 are shown to be located to be able to engage an arbitrary lower facial region of the user), the second portion having a second stiffness (¶ 0081 describes that the structures #834a (while not all regions’ elastomeric structures #834a are labeled in Fig. 8A, the “dot-dot lines” that depict the discrete regions that are occupied by the elastomeric structures carry over from Fig. 8 to 8A) can be foam blocks, which has some amount of stiffness attributed thereto), the first stiffness is greater than the second stiffness (Hatfield-453 teaches that the facial interface #130 may be configured to engage bony structures (such as the forehead area) with greater force/pressure than soft tissue regions (such as the temples, cheeks or sinus regions) of the user, which is indicative of a greater stiffness in the first portion than in the second portion, with respect to the stiffness of the foam material), but is silent to voids being formed in the second portion to define the second stiffness.
Kohatsu-666 teaches a cushioning material for being worn by a user, wherein the cushioning material can include regions of varying force responsiveness (¶ 0046 of Kohatsu-666). Kohatsu-666 teaches that the varying regions of force responsiveness is created by the presence of differently-sized and/or differently-oriented aperture patterns in the cushioning element, due to the inclusion of voids that are larger and/or greater in quantity to provide softer and/or cushioned regions in the portions that include the apertures, as compared to regions that have smaller and/or fewer apertures (¶ 0051 of Kohatsu-666), wherein the material can include foams (¶ 0080 of Kohatsu-666). While most of Kohatsu-666’s disclosure is directed to footwear soles, it is indicated that the inventive concepts can be utilized in various articles of apparel (¶ 0029 of Kohatsu-666).
Hatfield-453 and Kohatsu-666 teach analogous inventions in the field of apparel with cushioning elements. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the foam material with the variations of aperture patterns taught by Kohatsu-666 as the material of choice for the foam in the facial interface of Hatfield-453 in order to provide the variations in stiffness that can apply force/pressure in different amounts to the different parts of the face being contacted by the device. As a result of the modification, the regions for the sides and bottom would have apertures included throughout (i.e. patterns with larger/more voids would impart the softer second stiffness for the second portion) to render those regions softer for better comfort for the wearer, as compared to the forehead regions that are bonier, as indicated by Hatfield-453.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Hatfield-453 (i.e. Hatfield-453 in view of Kohatsu-666, as applied to claim 11 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as set forth above, and further that the cushion includes a molded foam (¶ 0006 of Kohatsu-666 teaches molding; Examiner notes that the verb term "mold" (i.e. “molded” being a past-tense version of an object that has had a molding action applied to it) is very broad and has a definition of "[t]o form into a particular shape; give shape to" (Verb Defn. No. 1.b. of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)) structure having the first portion and the second portion, the first portion having a first density, and the second portion having a second density, wherein the first density is greater than the second density (¶ 0006 of Kohatsu-666 discloses that regions with different numbers of apertures (i.e. voids) have different densities; if the first portion is stiffer, then it would have a higher density than the second portion that is less stiff, since the first portion would have more mass per volume than the second portion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at (571)272-5559. 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732