DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-16 and 22-29 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in line 9 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in line 1 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in line 1 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in line 1 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in lines 1-2 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in lines 2 and 3 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in lines 1-2 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "first and second adjustment loops" in line 1 and line 2-3 of the claims. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the first adjustment loop or second adjustment loop are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in lines 1-2 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "first and second soft keeper loops" in line 1 and 2-3 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the first soft keeper loop or second soft keeper loop are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in lines 1-2 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "first and second pull tabs" in line 1 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the first pull tab or the second pull tab are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in line 1 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the upper and lower headband portions" in line 5 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the upper headband portion or the lower headband portion are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "first and second stiffener layers" in lines 1-2 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the first stiffener layer or the second stiffener layer are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the first and second portions of the webbing" in line 4 of the claim. This phrase is indefinite as it is not clear if the first portion or the webbing or the second portion of the webbing are singular or plural elements in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (12,256,057).
Regarding Claim 1: Lee teaches a headband (figs. 4a – 4c-1) operable with a head-mounted device (210) having a head-mounted housing member (figs. 4a – 4c-1), the headband comprising: an upper headband portion (138); a lower headband portion (140) that extends from the upper headband portion (figs. 4a – 4c-1), wherein the upper headband portion and the lower headband portion are configured to be coupled to the head-mounted housing member (figs. 4a – 4c-1), the upper headband portion extends from the head-mounted housing member at an angle of at least 80° (figs. 4a – 4c-1 as can be seen the angle is at least past 90 degrees and therefore must be at least 80), and the lower headband portion extends from the head-mounted housing member at an angle of at least 35° (figs. 4a – 4c-1 shows the angle being greater than 90 degrees and therefore must be at least 35); and stiffeners (13900) in the upper and lower headband portions (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 2: Lee teaches a temple housing (118) coupled to the upper and lower headband portions (figs. 4a – 4c-1), wherein the temple housing comprises an opening that is configured to be coupled to the head-mounted housing member (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 3: Lee teaches the temple housing comprises rigid polymer (col. 56 lines 39-48).
Regarding Claim 4: Lee teaches the upper and lower headband portions comprise a surface (figs. 4a – 4c-1), and the temple housing is coupled to the surface (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 5: Lee teaches the upper and lower headband portions comprise fabric (col. 58 lines 15-46), and the temple housing is embedded in the fabric (figs. 4a – 4c-1 and col. 58 lines 15-48).
Regarding Claim 6: Lee teaches the temple housing extends into the upper and lower headband portions (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 7: Lee teaches the temple housing is interposed between the upper and lower headband portions (figs. 4a – 4c-1), and the temple housing has first and second edges that are respectively coupled to the upper and lower headband portions (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 10: Lee teaches first and second adjustment loops (figs. 4a – 4c-1), wherein the upper and lower headband portions comprise double-backed portions (figs. 4a – 4c-1) that respectively pass through the first and second adjustment loops. (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 11: Lee teaches first and second soft keeper loops (figs. 28a-28c), wherein the double-backed portions of the upper and lower headband portions are respectively configured to pass through the first and second soft keeper loops (figs. 28a-28c).
Regarding Claim 12: Lee teaches first and second pull tabs (fig. 30) respectively coupled to single surfaces of the double-backed portions of the upper and lower headband portions (fig. 30); and hook and loop fasteners coupled to opposing surfaces of the double-backed portions (fig. 30).
Regarding Claim 13: Lee teaches the upper and lower headband portions comprise fabric (figs. 4a – 4c-1 and col. 58 lines 15-48), the hook and loop fasteners are formed on substrates (fig. 30), and the substrates are embedded within the fabric (figs. 4a – 4c-1 and col. 58 lines 15-48).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (12,256,057).
Regarding Claim 8: Lee lacks a specific teaching of the upper headband portion is offset from the head-mounted housing member by at least 10 mm, and the lower headband portion is offset from the head-mounted housing member by at least 15 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee by having the upper headband portion is offset from the head-mounted housing member by at least 10 mm, and the lower headband portion is offset from the head-mounted housing member by at least 15 mm in order to allow for an optimal spacing between the headband and the head-mounted housing in order to allow the straps to fit the most amount of users to have an optimal target audience for the device which in turn creates an overall more versatile system.
Regarding Claim 9: Lee lacks a specific teaching of the upper headband portion is offset from the head-mounted housing member by 0 mm, and the lower headband portion is offset from the head-mounted housing member by between 18 mm and 35 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee by having the upper headband portion is offset from the head-mounted housing member by 0 mm, and the lower headband portion is offset from the head-mounted housing member by between 18 mm and 35 mm in order to allow for an optimal spacing between the headband and the head-mounted housing in order to allow the straps to fit the most amount of users to have an optimal target audience for the device which in turn creates an overall more versatile system.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (12,256,057) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Ellis (2019/0243145).
Regarding Claim 14: Lee lacks a specific teaching of the stiffeners comprise stiffeners in the upper headband portion with gradually reduced stiffness between a first stiffened region and a second stiffened region.
Ellis teaches the stiffeners comprise stiffeners in the upper headband portion with gradually reduced stiffness between a first stiffened region and a second stiffened region paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee by having the stiffeners comprise stiffeners in the upper headband portion with gradually reduced stiffness between a first stiffened region and a second stiffened region as disclosed by Ellis in order to allow for a stronger more stable strapping system for the apparatus which in turn will decrease the chances of the straps breaking and potential damage happening to the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 15: Lee teaches the first stiffened region comprises an opening that is configured to be coupled to the head-mounted housing member (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (12,256,057) in view of Ellis (2019/0243145) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Davidson (2023/0152594).
Regarding Claim 16: Lee in view of Ellis lacks a specific teaching of the stiffeners further comprise a braided cord that extends along an edge of the lower headband portion.
Davidson teaches the stiffeners further comprise a braided cord that extends along an edge of the lower headband portion (paragraph [1382]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee in view of Ellis by having the stiffeners further comprise a braided cord that extends along an edge of the lower headband portion as disclosed by Davidson in order to allow for a stronger more stable strapping system for the apparatus which in turn will decrease the chances of the straps breaking and potential damage happening to the overall apparatus.
Claim(s) 17-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (12,256,057) in further view of Ellis (2019/0243145).
Regarding Claim 17: Lee teaches head-mounted device headband operable with a head-mounted device housing, comprising: a first end (figs. 4a – 4c-1) configured to couple to a first side of the head-mounted device housing (figs. 4a – 4c-1); a second end (figs. 4a – 4c-1) configured to couple to an opposing second side of the head-mounted device housing (figs. 4a – 4c-1); an upper headband portion (138) that extends between the first end and the second end (figs. 4a – 4c-1); and a lower headband portion (140) that extends between the first end and the second end (figs. 4a – 4c-1), wherein the lower headband portion comprises a stiffener (13900) that extends along an edge of the lower headband portion (figs. 4a – 4c-1), but lacks a specific teaching of, wherein the upper headband portion comprises a first region with a first stiffness, a second region with a second stiffness that is less than the first stiffness, and a graded stiffness between the first region and the second region.
Ellis teaches wherein the upper headband portion comprises a first region with a first stiffness (paragraph [0053]), a second region with a second stiffness that is less than the first stiffness (paragraph [0053]), and a graded stiffness between the first region and the second region (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee by having wherein the upper headband portion comprises a first region with a first stiffness, a second region with a second stiffness that is less than the first stiffness, and a graded stiffness between the first region and the second region as disclosed by Ellis in order to allow for a stronger more stable strapping system for the apparatus which in turn will decrease the chances of the straps breaking and potential damage happening to the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18: Lee teaches wherein the upper headband portion is configured to be worn on a top portion of a user’s head (figs. 4a – 4c-1), and the lower headband portion is configured to be worn on a lower rear portion of the user’s head (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 19: Lee teaches wherein the upper headband portion and the lower headband portion are attached with an adhesive (figs. 4a – 4c-1), the upper headband portion and the lower headband portion comprise an opening configured to attach to the head-mounted device housing (figs. 4a – 4c-1), and the first region of the upper headband portion includes the opening (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 20: Lee teaches wherein the upper headband portion and the lower headband portion are formed integrally with each other (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 21: Lee teaches a temple housing (118) coupled to the upper headband portion and the lower headband portion (figs. 4a – 4c-1), wherein the temple housing comprises an opening configured to attach to the head-mounted device housing (figs. 4a – 4c-1).
Regarding Claim 22: Lee teaches a headband configured to couple to a support member of a head-mounted device housing (figs. 4a – 4c-1), the headband comprising: an upper headband portion (138); a lower headband portion (140) that extends from the upper headband portion (figs. 4a – 4c-1); and a temple housing (118) coupled to the upper and lower headband portions (figs. 4a – 4c-1), wherein the temple housing comprises an opening that is configured to attach to the support member (figs. 4a – 4c-1), but lacks a specific teaching of the upper headband portion comprises a graded stiffener adjacent to the temple housing.
Ellis teaches the upper headband portion comprises a graded stiffener adjacent to the temple housing (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee by having the upper headband portion comprises a graded stiffener adjacent to the temple housing as disclosed by Ellis in order to allow for a stronger more stable strapping system for the apparatus which in turn will decrease the chances of the straps breaking and potential damage happening to the overall apparatus.
Regarding Claim 23: Lee teaches the upper headband portion comprises a first portion (figs. 4a – 4c-1), a second portion (figs. 4a – 4c-1), and a keeper loop (figs. 28a-28c) attached to the first portion (figs. 28a-28c), and wherein the second portion passes through and doubles back through the keeper loop (figs. 28a-28c).
Regarding Claim 24: Lee teaches the upper headband portion further comprises an adjuster loop (figs. 5a - 5a-2), wherein the second portion doubles back around the adjuster loop (figs. 5a – 5a-2).
Regarding Claim 25: Lee teaches the keeper loop is formed integrally with the first portion (figs. 28a-28c).
Regarding Claim 26: Lee teaches the keeper loop comprises fabric reinforced with polymer (figs. 4a – 4c-1 and col. 58 lines 15-48 and col. 56 lines 39-48).
Regarding Claim 27: Lee teaches the keeper loop is a first keeper loop, and the lower headband portion comprises a second keeper loop (figs. 40a-48 and 51a-52b).
Regarding Claim 28: Lee lacks a specific teaching of the graded stiffener comprises first and second stiffener layers and a stiffener encapsulation layer that has a thickness that varies gradually along a curved profile.
Ellis teaches the graded stiffener comprises first and second stiffener layers and a stiffener encapsulation layer that has a thickness that varies gradually along a curved profile (paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee by having the graded stiffener comprises first and second stiffener layers and a stiffener encapsulation layer that has a thickness that varies gradually along a curved profile as disclosed by Ellis in order to allow for a stronger more stable strapping system for the apparatus which in turn will decrease the chances of the straps breaking and potential damage happening to the overall apparatus.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (12,256,057)in view of Ellis (2019/0243145) and further in view of Raffle (2018/0095498).
Regarding Claim 29: Lee teaches the upper headband portion comprises a strap that includes woven fabric portion (col. 56 lines 30-38), but lacks a specific teaching of the fabric portion being surrounded by a webbing, the webbing has rounded corners at an edge of the woven fabric portion, the webbing has a first portion and a second portion, and the first and second portions of the webbing meet at a seam that is invisible to a naked eye.
Raffle teaches the fabric portion being surrounded by a webbing (paragraph [0016]), the webbing has rounded corners at an edge of the woven fabric portion (paragraph [0016] wherein the rounded corners of the strap is shown best in fig. 2c), the webbing has a first portion and a second portion (paragraph [0016] and fig. 2c showing a top and bottom of the strap), but lacks a specific teaching of the first and second portions of the webbing meet at a seam that is invisible to a naked eye.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee in view of Ellis by having the fabric portion being surrounded by a webbing, the webbing has rounded corners at an edge of the woven fabric portion, the webbing has a first portion and a second portion as disclosed by Raffle in order to allow for a stronger more durable strapping portion of the device which in turn decreases the chances of the strap breaking and leading to the device falling and potentially causing damage requiring repair or replacement of the components.
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Lee in view of Ellis and further in view of Raffle by having the first and second portions of the webbing meet at a seam that is invisible to a naked eye in order to allow for a stronger more durable strapping portion of the device which in turn decreases the chances of the strap breaking and leading to the device falling and potentially causing damage requiring repair or replacement of the components wherein this would be accomplished merely by relocating the already disclosed elements of the apparatus and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the notice of references cited PTO-892 but not relied upon for the rejections above relate to the current application as they include head wearable devices with straps around the user’s head to properly hold the device to the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841