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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Zhang et al. does not disclose “the fitting pads are separated from each other”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang et al. (figures 1-5) discloses a supporting frame configured to be assembled to a head-mounted display device as claimed including two fitting pads (120A; figure 2A), wherein each of the fitting pads is pivotally connected to a second end of the corresponding cantilever arm (At least one cushion (such as the first cushion 120A and the second cushion 120B shown in FIG. 3 A) is floatingly connected to the wearable assembly 110; see at least page 6, 9th paragraph), and the fitting pads are separated from each other (the mesh part 114a has a pair of first grooves 114a1 corresponding to the phase with the first sliding part 122A1, the pair of first sliding part 122A1 can be movably set in the sliding groove in the first 114a1 so that the first cushion 120A is floatingly connected to the wearable assembly 110; see at least page 6, the last three paragraphs). Even though the pads as disclosed by Zhang et al. are connected via the mesh part 114a, they are separated from each other. The applicant should note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“Wherein each of the fitting pads is pivotally connected to a second end of the corresponding cantilever arm” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 110441907).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. (figures 1-5) discloses a supporting frame configured to be assembled to a head-mounted display device, wherein the supporting frame comprises:
a fixing portion (130A) configured to be assembled to the head-mounted display device (The first adjustable fixing assembly 130A includes a first positioning structure 132A and a second positioning structure 134A, a first positioning structure connected to the eyepiece portion 114a, a second positioning structure connected to the first cushion 120A; see at least page 6, 9th paragraph);
a platform portion (122A, 120A; figure 3A) fixed to the fixing portion and configured to lean against a top of the head-mounted display device (When the user wearing the headgear assembly 114 to the head, the first upper side 124A1 the first cushion 120A can contact forehead bone of the user; see at least page 7, 6th paragraph);
two cantilever arms (114; figure 2A), wherein a first end of each of the cantilever arms is fixed to the fixing portion (The first adjustable fixing assembly 130A includes a first positioning structure 132A and a second positioning structure 134A, a first positioning structure connected to the eyepiece portion 114a, a second positioning structure connected to the first cushion 120A; see at least page 6, 9th paragraph); and
two fitting pads (120A; figure 2A), wherein each of the fitting pads is pivotally connected to a second end of the corresponding cantilever arm (At least one cushion (such as the first cushion 120A and the second cushion 120B shown in FIG. 3 A) is floatingly connected to the wearable assembly 110; see at least page 6, 9th paragraph), and the fitting pads are separated from each other (the mesh part 114a has a pair of first grooves 114a1 corresponding to the phase with the first sliding part 122A1, the pair of first sliding part 122A1 can be movably set in the sliding groove in the first 114a1 so that the first cushion 120A is floatingly connected to the wearable assembly 110; see at least page 6, the last three paragraphs).
“Wherein each of the fitting pads is pivotally connected to a second end of the corresponding cantilever arm” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein the supporting frame is configured to be worn on a head of a user, pivot points are located on a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located (when the user wants to wear the wearable assembly 110 worn on the head, the mesh part 114a covered on the eyes of the user, and by rotating the rotating mechanism 114c to drive the extending part 114b tightening or loosening, so as to adjust the total length of the extending part 114b; so that the wearable assembly 110 worn on the head of the user; see at least page 6, 10th paragraph).
The limitations "the supporting frame is configured to be worn on a head of a user, pivot points are located on a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located" are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. (figures 1-5) discloses a head-mounted display device, comprising:
a display portion (112);
a supporting frame (114), comprising:
a fixing portion configured to be assembled to the display portion (The first adjustable fixing assembly 130A includes a first positioning structure 132A and a second positioning structure 134A, a first positioning structure connected to the eyepiece portion 114a, a second positioning structure connected to the first cushion 120A; see at least page 6, 9th paragraph);
a platform portion (122A, 120A; figure 3A) fixed to the fixing portion and configured to lean against a top of the head-mounted display portion (When the user wearing the headgear assembly 114 to the head, the first upper side 124A1 the first cushion 120A can contact forehead bone of the user; see at least page 7, 6th paragraph);
two cantilever arms (114; figure 2A), wherein a first end of each of the cantilever arms is fixed to the fixing portion (The first adjustable fixing assembly 130A includes a first positioning structure 132A and a second positioning structure 134A, a first positioning structure connected to the eyepiece portion 114a, a second positioning structure connected to the first cushion 120A; see at least page 6, 9th paragraph); and
two fitting pads (120A; figure 2A), wherein each of the fitting pads is pivotally connected to a second end of the corresponding cantilever arm (At least one cushion (such as the first cushion 120A and the second cushion 120B shown in FIG. 3 A) is floatingly connected to the wearable assembly 110; see at least page 6, 9th paragraph), and the fitting pads are separated from each other (the mesh part 114a has a pair of first grooves 114a1 corresponding to the phase with the first sliding part 122A1, the pair of first sliding part 122A1 can be movably set in the sliding groove in the first 114a1 so that the first cushion 120A is floatingly connected to the wearable assembly 110; see at least page 6, the last three paragraphs)..
“Wherein each of the fitting pads is pivotally connected to a second end of the corresponding cantilever arm” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein the supporting frame is configured to be worn on a head of a user, pivot points are located on a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located (when the user wants to wear the wearable assembly 110 worn on the head, the mesh part 114a covered on the eyes of the user, and by rotating the rotating mechanism 114c to drive the extending part 114b tightening or loosening, so as to adjust the total length of the extending part 114b; so that the wearable assembly 110 worn on the head of the user; see at least page 6, 10th paragraph).
The limitations "wherein the supporting frame is configured to be worn on a head of a user, pivot points are located on a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located" are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 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 3, 5, 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 110441907).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the supporting frame is configured to be worn on a head of a user, a distance between pivot points and a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located is between −1.1 cm and 1.1 cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between pivot points and a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located being between −1.1 cm and 1.1 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a distance between the fitting pads and two pivot points of the cantilever arms is between 6 cm and 11 cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between the fitting pads and two pivot points of the cantilever arms being between 6 cm and 11 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the supporting frame is configured to be worn on a head of a user, a distance between pivot points and a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located is between −1.1 cm and 1.1 cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between pivot points and a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located being between −1.1 cm and 1.1 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The limitations “wherein the supporting frame is configured to be worn on a head of a user, a distance between pivot points and a vertical plane where eyes of the user are located is between −1.1 cm and 1.1 cm” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a distance between the fitting pads and two pivot points of the cantilever arms is between 6 cm and 11 cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance between the fitting pads and two pivot points of the cantilever arms being between 6 cm and 11 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights