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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-7 and 10-12 are rejected
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are objected to
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett et al (US PAT 5767820, hereinafter Bassett).
Regarding Claim 1, Bassett discloses a head-mounted device (e.g. HMVD 10), (see at least the abstract and figure 1), comprising: a host (e.g. a display shell 16) having a first connection part (e.g. a first lower connection part) and a second connection part (e.g. a second or outer connection part) located on two opposite sides (see figure 2A); a retractable headband (e.g. an adjustable headband 20), having an earphone connection part (e.g. headphone mount 28), and a first connection end (e.g. an inner connection end) and a second connection end (e.g. an upper connection end) located on two opposite sides (see figure 2A), wherein the first connection end is connected to the first connection part, the second connection end is connected to the second connection part, and an earphone (e.g. earphone 14), connected to the earphone connection part (13), (see Bassett, column 3 line 65 to column 4 line 60; also figures 1-2B).
Bassett does not explicitly disclose: and when the retractable headband is elongated by an elongation amount (e.g. via a sizing knob 32), a change in a distance between the earphone connection part (28) and the first connection end is less than half of the elongation amount.
However, Bassett discloses an equivalent configuration that produces a ‘zero change in distance’ between the earphone connection part and the first connection end, regardless of any possible amount of elongation made to headband 20 (see figures 2A-2B). Thus, the invention of claim 1 is obvious over the teachings of Basset, since a zero change in distance that is produced when the headband 20 is elongated is obviously less than half of any amount of such elongation.
Regarding Claim 4, Bassett discloses the head-mounted device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the earphone is rotatable (e.g. via a pivot 28) with respect to the retractable headband (see Bassett, figures 2A-2B).
Regarding Claim 7, Bassett discloses a retractable headband (e.g. an adjustable headband 20) for a head-mounted device (e.g. HMVD 10), (see at least the abstract and figure 1), wherein the head-mounted device comprises a host (e.g. a display shell 16) and an earphone (e.g. earphone 14), the host has first connection part (e.g. a first lower connection part) and a second connection part (e.g. a second or outer connection part) located on two opposite sides located on two opposite sides (see figure 2A), the retractable headband has an earphone connection part (e.g. headphone mount 28), (see figure 2A), and a first connection end (e.g. an inner connection end) and a second connection end (e.g. an upper connection end) located on two opposite sides (see figure 2A), the first connection end is configured to connect the first connection part, the second connection end is configured to connect the second connection part, and the earphone connection part (28) is configured to connect the earphone (14), (see Bassett, column 3 line 65 to column 4 line 60; also figures 1-2B).
Bassett does not explicitly disclose: and when the retractable headband is elongated by an elongation amount (e.g. via a sizing knob 32), a change in a distance between the earphone connection part (28) and the first connection end is less than half of the elongation amount.
However, Bassett discloses an equivalent configuration that produces a ‘zero change in distance’ between the earphone connection part and the first connection end, regardless of any possible amount of elongation made to headband 20 (see figures 2A-2B). Thus, the invention of claim 7 is obvious over the teachings of Basset, since a zero change in distance that is produced when the headband 20 is elongated is obviously less than half of any amount of such elongation.
Regarding Claim 11, Bassett discloses the retractable headband as claimed in claim 7, wherein the earphone is rotatable (e.g. via a pivot 28) with respect to the retractable headband (see Bassett, figures 2A-2B).
Claim(s) 5-6, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett as applied to Claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Silfvast et al (US PUB 20210018758, hereinafter Silfvast).
Regarding Claim 5, Bassett discloses the head-mounted device as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the earphone is magnetically attracted to the earphone connection part.
However, Silfvast in the same field of endeavor teaches a head-mounted device (see at least the abstract and figure 1), comprising a headband (e.g. head support 104), an earphone (e.g. an audio component 1212) and an earphone connection part (e.g. an attachment member 130), (see figure 12), wherein the earphone is magnetically attracted to the earphone connection part (e.g. the audio component 1612 includes a magnetic attachment member 1624 that is configured for engagement with one or more corresponding attachment members 1626 included on the wearable support(s) 1614), (see Silfvast, [0102]-[0103], also figures 12, 14 and 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate magnetic means to attach the earphone to the headband as taught by Silfvast in the teachings of Bassett in order to effectively facilitate the connection, disconnection, and reorientation of the audio component as may be warranted.
Regarding Claim 6, Bassett as modified by Silfvast discloses the head-mounted device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the retractable headband further has a sliding groove (e.g. a track groove 1300), and the earphone connection part is slidably disposed in the sliding groove (see Silfvast, [0097]-[0098], and [0103], also figures 14-16).
Regarding Claim 10, Bassett discloses the retractable headband as claimed in claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the earphone connection part is configured to magnetically attract the earphone.
However, Silfvast in the same field of endeavor teaches a head-mounted device (see at least the abstract and figure 1), comprising a headband (e.g. head support 104), an earphone (e.g. an audio component 1212) and an earphone connection part (e.g. an attachment member 130), (see figure 12), wherein the earphone is magnetically attracted to the earphone connection part (e.g. the audio component 1612 includes a magnetic attachment member 1624 that is configured for engagement with one or more corresponding attachment members 1626 included on the wearable support(s) 1614), (see Silfvast, [0102]-[0103], also figures 12, 14 and 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate magnetic means to attach the earphone to the headband as taught by Silfvast in the teachings of Bassett in order to effectively facilitate the connection, disconnection, and reorientation of the audio component as may be warranted.
Regarding Claim 12, Bassett as modified by Silfvast discloses the retractable headband as claimed in claim 7, further comprising a sliding groove (e.g. a track groove 1300), wherein the earphone connection part is slidably disposed in the sliding groove (see Silfvast, [0097]-[0098], and [0103], also figures 14-16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record provided on PTO 829 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYESOLA C OJO whose telephone number is (571)272-0848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm Central Time.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7840. 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.
/OYESOLA C OJO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695