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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7 “a first protrusion extending from a first side of a first wall of the second support structure” raises clarity (antecedent?) issues. It is unclear if this first protrusion and this first side are a different first protrusion and first side from the ones introduced in claim 1 or if it the same first protrusion and first side as the one introduced in claim 1 and if so what the further limitation is. Insofar as the examiner can decern they are the same and does not add any new limitation. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “[[a]] the first protrusion extending from [[a]] the first side of a first wall of the second support structure.” Even with these suggestions the claim still does not appear to further limit the invention of claim 1 and examiner respectfully suggests cancelling the claim.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 7 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 8 “wherein the first protrusion is configured to be removably connected to a portion of a first limit wall of the first support structure when the resilient member is at a maximum extended position” raises clarity issues. Claim 1 already requires the first protrusion to be “configured to be removably connected to a portion of a first limit wall of the first support structure”. It is unclear if labelling the position is further limiting or not. Insofar as the examiner can decern there are no new limitations. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling the claim or amending claim 8 it as follows:
8. The head-mounted wearable device of claim [[7]]- 6, wherein when the first protrusion isthe portion of [[a]] the first limit wall of the first support structure
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 8 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 9 “a second protrusion extending from a second side of the first wall of the second support structure” raises clarity (antecedent?) issues. It is unclear if this second protrusion and this second side are a different second protrusion and second side from the ones introduced in claim 1 or if it the same second protrusion and second side as the one introduced in claim 1 and if so what the further limitation is. Insofar as the examiner can decern they are the same and does not add any new limitation. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “[[a]] the second protrusion extending from [[a]] the second side of a first wall of the second support structure.” Even with these suggestions the claim still does not appear to further limit the invention of claim 1 and examiner respectfully suggests cancelling the claim and for consistency amending claim 10 it as follows:
10. The head-mounted wearable device of claim [[9]] 8, wherein when the second protrusion isthe portion of [[a]] the second limit wall of the first support structure
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 9 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter/Response to Arguments
Claims 1-6 and 11-12 are allowed.
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the features/limitations of applicant’s independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 would be proper.
Regarding independent claim 1 (and therefore its dependent claims) the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the head-mounted wearable device as claimed. Specifically, the examiner was persuaded by and agrees with the reasons set forth in the remarks of June 12, 2026 pages 4-8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 26, 2026
