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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on March 5, 2026, in which claims 1-17, 22-31, and 33 were presented for examination, of which claims 3, 5-6, 11-14, 16, 24, and 33 were withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement, are being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B and Species E in the reply filed on March 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 17, 22, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ketterer et al. “Ketterer” (US Patent 9,949,522).
Regarding claim 1, Ketterer discloses a headband system (combination of 24 and 36, Fig. 3-5) operable with a head-mounted device (14, Fig. 3-5), the headband system (combination of 24 and 36) comprising: a first headband (36) having an opening (opening around 36 for head); a head-mounted device housing structure (24, Fig. 3, 7, and 8) having a post (38, Fig. 7-8A) configured to be received within the opening (as shown in Fig. 3-5 and 10, “configured to…opening” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function); a latch (combination of 32 and 34) having a latch member (32) configured to move between an open position in which the latch member does not engage the post (as shown in Fig. 3 where housing structure 24 is decoupled from the headband, “configured to…post” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function) and a closed position in which the latch member engages the post and secures the first headband to the head- mounted device housing structure (as shown in Fig. 4, where the post, 36, is engaged to the latch member, 32, through housing structure 24); and a second headband (22) coupled to the head-mounted device housing structure (24, as shown in Fig. 3-5 and 10).
Regarding claim 17, Ketterer discloses wherein the second headband (22) is an overhead strap (as shown in Fig. 3), and the first headband (36) is configured to be attached to the head-mounted device housing structure (24) between the second headband (22) and the head- mounted device housing structure (24, as shown in Fig. 10, due to the post being an integral part of head mounted device housing structure, 24).
Regarding claim 22, Ketterer discloses a head-mounted device (combination of 22, 24, and 36) operable with first and second headbands (36 and 22, respectively), comprising: a head-mounted device housing structure (24); and a post (38) coupled to the head-mounted device housing structure (24, Fig. 7-8A), wherein: the post is configured to be received within an opening (opening around 36 for head) in the first headband (36); and the second headband (22) is configured to be attached to the post (38, examiner notes as shown in Fig. 3-5 and 10, where the post, 38, is connected to headbands 22 and 36, through the housing structure, 24).
Regarding claim 23, Ketterer discloses wherein the post (38) has a movable latch member (68) configured to move between: a retracted position (as shown in Fig. 3) that allows the first and second headbands (36 and 22, respectively) to be detached from the head-mounted device housing structure (as shown in Fig. 3, “configured to…structure” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function); and an extended position (Fig. 4, 5 and 10) in which the movable latch member (68) is received within a latch recess (32) on a side of the opening and retains the first and second headbands on the post (Fig. 10, Col. 6, lines: 44-50).
Regarding claim 25, Ketterer discloses wherein the opening is a first opening (opening around 36 for head), and wherein the post (38) is further configured to be received within a second opening in the second headband (see annotated Fig. 3 and Fig. 8 below), with the second headband (22) interposed between the head-mounted device housing structure (24) and the first headband (36, as shown in Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
727
1030
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 and 8 - Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 26, Ketterer discloses a head-mounted device headband system (invention as shown in at least Fig. 3-5) operable with a head-mounted device housing, wherein the head- mounted device housing has first and second protruding portions (68, Fig. 7-8, and see annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the head-mounted device headband system comprises: a first headband (36) having opposing ends (see annotated Fig. 3 below) with respective first and second openings (32) that are respectively configured to receive the first and second protruding portions (68, Col. 6, lines: 44-50, Fig. 10);a first releasable latch (66) configured to secure the first protruding portion (68) within the first opening (32, Col. 6, lines: 44-50, Fig. 10, “configured to…opening” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function); a second releasable latch (66) configured to secure the second protruding portion within the second opening (32, Col. 6, lines: 44-50, Fig. 10, “configured to…opening” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function); and a second headband (22) having first and second opposing ends (see annotated Fig. 3 below) that are respectively configured to be attached to the first and second protruding portions (68, “configured to…portions” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, as shown in Fig. 3-5, 8, and 10, connected through the body of 24).
PNG
media_image2.png
612
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3-Examiner Annotated
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 2, 4, 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketterer in view of Pietrzak et al. “Pietrzak” (US PG Pub. 2022/0031005).
Regarding claim 2, Ketterer discloses wherein the post (38, Fig. 8A) is a first post (as shown in Fig. 3-5 and 8A),
Ketterer does not disclose a second post.
However, Pietrzak teaches yet another headband system, wherein Pietrzak teaches a second headband (3) comprises a second post (magnet on 3 that allows for magnetic connection, Par. 0087) that is configured to be attached to the first post (20, Fig. 14, Par. 0087).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second headband disclosed by Ketterer, by incorporating a second post configured to be attached to the first post as taught by Pietrzak, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the headband system when worn.
Regarding claim 4, Ketterer discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Ketterer does not disclose a first magnet.
However, Pietrzak teaches yet another headband system, wherein Pietrzak teaches a post (20) comprises a first magnet (23, Fig. 8 and 11, Par. 0087), the second headband (3) comprises a second magnet (Par. 0087, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the second headband would have a second magnet, in order for the device to be in a configuration shown in Fig. 8), and the second headband is configured to be attached to the post magnetically (Par. 0087, “configured to…magnetically” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post and second headband disclosed by Ketterer, by incorporating magnets as taught by Pietrzak, in order to enhance the structural integrity and connection of the headband system when worn.
Regarding claim 7, Ketterer discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Ketterer does not disclose the post comprises an additional opening.
However, Pietrzak teaches yet another headband system, wherein Pietrzak teaches the post (20) comprises an additional opening (opening around 23 in Fig. 10), the second headband (3) comprises a protruding portion (portion around the magnet of 3 that allows magnetic attachment, Par. 0087), and the second headband (3) is configured to be attached to the head-mounted device with the protruding portion inserted into the additional opening (examiner notes insert into the additional opening through their integral connection to first magnet, 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post and second headband disclosed by Ketterer, by incorporating an additional opening and a protruding portion as taught by Pietrzak, in order to enhance the structural integrity and connection of the headband system when worn.
Regarding claim 8, Ketterer in view of Pietrzak disclose wherein the post comprises a first magnet (24), the protruding portion comprises a second magnet (portion around magnet of 3 that allows magnetic attachment), and the protruding portion is configured to be attached to the post magnetically (Par. 0087, “configured to…magnetically” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Regarding claim 15, Ketterer discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Ketterer does not disclose magnets.
However, Pietrzak teaches yet another headband system, wherein Pietrzak teaches the post (20) comprises an extendable magnet (23, Fig. 10, examiner notes extendable due to spanning the length of post 20), the second headband (3) comprises an additional opening with a stationary magnet (Par. 0087, magnet that attaches post to second headband, 3. Examiner notes the “additional opening” is the opening around the stationary magnet on second headband, 3), and the stationary magnet is configured to attract the extendable magnet into the additional opening to attach the second headband to the head-mounted device (Par. 0087, “configured to…magnetically” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post and second headband disclosed by Ketterer, by incorporating an extendable magnet and a second headband with a stationary magnet as taught by Pietrzak, in order to enhance the structural integrity and connection of the headband system when worn.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketterer in view of Pietrzak, further in view of Staudinger (US Patent 10,588,373), hereinafter Staudinger.
Regarding claim 9, Ketterer in view of Pietrzak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose a twist lock system.
However, Staudinger teaches yet another headband system, wherein Staudinger teaches the opening (35, Fig. 3) in the post (structure around opening 35) and the protruding portion (combination of 37 and insert element in opening 36, Col. 9, lines: 35-40 and 44-46) form a twist-to-lock system (Col. 9, lines: 35-40, examiner notes screws are well known to be a type of “twist-to-lock” system) that is configured to couple the second headband (12) to the post (as shown in Fig. 3 and 5, Col. 9, lines: 35-40, “configured to…post” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post and second headband as disclosed by Ketterer in view of Pietrzak, by incorporating a twist-to-lock system as taught by Staudinger, in order to enhance the structural integrity and connection of the headband system when worn.
Regarding claim 10, Ketterer in view of Pietrzak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose an additional latch.
However, Staudinger teaches yet another headband system, wherein Staudinger teaches the protruding portion (37) comprises an additional latch (“insert element”, Col. 9, lines: 44-46), that is configured to attach to a recess within the opening in the post (Col. 9, lines: 35-40 and 44-46, “configured to…post” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post as disclosed by Ketterer in view of Pietrzak, by incorporating an additional latch as taught by Pietrzak, in order to enhance the structural integrity and connection of the headband system when worn.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketterer in view of Sugerman et al. “Sugerman” (US Patent 9,554,610).
Regarding claim 27, Ketterer discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Ketterer does not disclose first and second adjustment loops.
However, Sugerman teaches yet another headband system, wherein Sugerman teaches first and second adjustment loops (see annotated Fig. 1 and 2 below), wherein the first and second headbands (155) comprise double-backed portions (see annotated Fig. 1 and 2 below) that respectively pass through the first and second adjustment loops (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
707
1117
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 and 2-Examiner Annotated
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head-mounted device headband system as disclosed by Ketterer, by incorporating first and second adjustment loops and headbands with double-backed portions as taught by Sugerman, in order to enhance the structural integrity and connection of the headband system when worn.
Regarding claim 28, Ketterer in view of Sugerman disclose further comprising:
first and second soft keeper loops (examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “keeper loops” are formed from a stitch, as shown in annotated Fig. 5 below, which are well known in the art to be considered “soft” to a degree, since Applicant does not describe metes and bounds for the term “soft”), wherein the double-backed portions of the first and second headbands (see annotated Fig. 1 above) are respectively configured to pass through the first and second soft keeper loops (“configured to…post” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, as shown in Fig. 1, 2, and 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
648
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5-Examiner Annotated
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketterer in view of Sugerman, further in view of Aileo (US Patent 3,897,596), hereinafter Aileo.
Regarding claim 29, Ketterer in view of Sugerman disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose first and second pull tabs.
However, Aileo teaches yet another headband system, wherein Aileo teaches first and second pull tabs (tab of 104, Fig. 2) respectively coupled to single surfaces of the double-backed portions of the first and second headbands (portions of 98, and 100 being “double-backed” due to stitches seen as dotted lined in Fig. 2); and hook and loop fasteners (102 and 104) coupled to opposing surfaces of the double-backed portions (as shown in Fig. 2)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the double-backed portions as disclosed by Ketterer in view of Sugerman, by incorporating first and second pull tabs and hook and loop fasteners as taught by Aileo, in order to enhance ease of use, and the structural integrity of the headband system when worn.
Regarding claim 30, Ketterer in view of Sugerman, further in view of Aileo disclose wherein the first and second headbands (100 and 98 of Aileo) comprise fabric (Col. 4, lines: 41-51, “woven fabric”), the hook and loop fasteners (102 and 104) are formed on substrates (Col. 4, lines: 64-67, examiner notes substrate is surface of 100 and 98), and the substrates are embedded within the fabric (as shown in Fig. 3, Col. 4, lines: 64-67).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketterer in view of Aileo.
Regarding claim 31, Ketterer discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose a strap that includes woven fabric portion.
However, Aileo teaches yet another headband system, wherein Aileo teaches the first headband comprises a strap (96) that includes woven fabric portion (Col. 4, lines: 41-51) surrounded by a webbing (Col. 4, lines: 64-67, Velcro elements on strap 96), the webbing has rounded corners at an edge of the woven fabric portion (as shown in Fig. 3), the webbing has a first portion and a second portion (portion of Velcro on 96), and the first and second portions of the webbing meet at a seam that is invisible to a naked eye (examiner notes the portions meet at the seam denoted as dotted lines on 96, by their shared connection with strap 96, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “invisible to a naked eye” when the system is in a worn configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first headband as disclosed by Ketterer, by incorporating a woven fabric portion surrounded by a webbing as taught by Aileo, in order to enhance user comfort when the headband system is worn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached on (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights