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.
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.
Claims 14-15 recites the limitation "the elastic core". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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 (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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180095498 A1 (RAFFLE; Hayes S. et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
478
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
482
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
580
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 19, Raffle teaches a head-mounted device, comprising: a housing [120]; left and right lenses supported by the housing [110], wherein the left lens is configured to provide a left image to a left eye box [see paragraph 0029: “the user views these separate images through the left and right optical lenses 110, with the left and right eyes maintaining some separation, the user may resolve the left and right images respectively displayed on the left and right portions of the display device into a single image having the illusion of depth”], wherein the right lens is configured to provide a right image to a right eye box [see paragraph 0029]; and a three-dimensional fabric cover that has a left cylindrical portion that is aligned with the left lens and a right cylindrical portion that is aligned with the right lens [140], wherein the three-dimensional fabric cover is configured to block an interior region of the housing from view and wherein the left and right cylindrical portions are configured to move relative to one another in response to movement of the right and left lenses to accommodate different interpupillary distances [see figure 3A and paragraph 0020: “For example, in some implementations, the face pad 140 may include a fabric cover over a flexible foam form to provide a measure of flexibility, and also rigidity, to the face pad 140”].
Raffle lacks the left and right lenses are configured to move relative to each other. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been common knowledge to configure the lenses to move in order to more accurately adjust the lens to align with the users pupils. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 20, Raffle teaches the head-mounted device defined in claim 19 wherein the three-dimensional fabric cover comprises a nose bridge portion coupled between the first and second cylindrical portions [see figure 3A].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Per claim 1, the prior art does not teach second strands that are interlaced with the first strands and that zig-zag back and forth within the diamond- shaped openings, wherein the second strands are configured to stretch in a weft direction.
Per claim 11, the prior art does not teach first and second cover openings that are respectively aligned with the first and second lenses; smooth strands that stretch in a first direction; and textured strands that stretch in a second direction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 19-20 do not rely upon US 11812831 B1 (Leith; William et al.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, 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 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights