DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the anchor being co-located with the strap exit point of claims 9 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9 and 20 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.
Claims 9 and 20 recite that the anchor is co-located with the strap exit point. This renders the claim indefinite because there is no corresponding disclosure in the specification or drawings as to what constitutes something being co-located. More specifically, does co-located mean on the same face, plane, edge, or axis or is some other structure or corresponding orientation being claimed? Correction or clarification 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boev (US 2018/0161670).
Regarding claim 1, Boev discloses an apparatus 100 comprising: a retractable strap 120 that is attached at a first strap end to an internal portion (116/121) of a human-interface-device (HID) controller comprising at least one of (1) an extended reality (XR) controller or (2) a mouse controller (the controller of Boev can be considered an xr controller or mouse controller noting that the claim does not define any specific structure or features of the XR controller or mouse controller and there is nothing preventing the Boev controller from being used with an XR system); a strap exit point located on an exterior surface of the HID controller (see Figure 3 directly below lead line 120); and an anchor 122 (see Figure between lead lines 143 and 111) on a portion of the HID controller, the anchor configured to removably secure a second strap end 121 to the HID controller, wherein the strap and HID controller form a closed loop when the second strap end is secured to the anchor (Figure 4), and wherein the strap and HID controller do not form a closed loop when the second strap end is not secured to the anchor (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, the HID controller comprises inputs 114 and 115 which can be considered an XR controller portion 115 and a mouse controller portion 114 to the degree presently claimed.
Regarding claim 3, see pre-tensioned spool 121 disposed in an interior of the HID controller and configured to retract the strap into the interior of the HID controller.
Regarding claim 5, the second strap end at 122 comprises a tab (see large rectangular end with a hole therethrough on the end portion of strap 122 – Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, the anchor is co-located with the strap exit point – see Figure 3 showing the anchor point and strap exit point being directly oppose to one another around surface 111 and being aligned on an upper surface thereof.
Regarding claim 13, see button operator fastener 122 (paragraph 0033 last sentence).
Regarding claim 15, see Figures 2 and 3 showing that when the strap 120 is fully retracted into an interior of the HID controller, the second strap end at 122 extends past the exterior surface of the HID controller.
Regarding claims 16-20, the method steps as claimed would be satisfied in the normal operation of the Boev controller as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9, 13 and 15 above.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boev (US 2018/0161670) in view of Bass et al. (US 7,458,488).
Regarding claim 4, Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including coil spring 121, but does not disclose a ratchet mechanism. Bass teaches a similar retractable strap 110 on a portable device 105, the device having an internal pre tensioned spool 145 and a ratchet mechanism 156. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a ratchet mechanism with the spool of Boev in order to prevent the spool from rotating and loosening.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boev (US 2018/0161670) in view of Dackow (US 2012/0305725).
Regarding claims 6-8, Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a tab being formed at the second end of the strap but does not disclose the various embodiments of the tab/anchor, specifically a tab hole/anchor pin, tab magnets/anchor magnets and a tab negative hook/anchor positive hook. Dackow teaches several alternate means of anchoring (at 300) the second free end of a strap 200 to a personal device – see Figures 9, 10 and 13. More specifically, Dackow discloses a tab 400 having a hole 404 surrounded by an outer tab material and being anchored by pin 450/452 (Figure 13), a tab formed as a magnet 237 anchored to an anchor magnet 362 (Figure 9), and a tab formed as a negative hook 239 and anchoring positive hook 382 (Figure 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to replace the anchor 122 of Boev with any of the alternative tab and anchors disclosed by Dackow as disclosed in Figures 9, 10, and 13 in order to provide alternative anchors that are known and accessible in the art.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boev (US 2018/0161670) in view of Knoppert et al. (US 11,816,263).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose sensors that detect the relative length or position of the strap as claimed. Knoppert discloses a similar controller 452 with a retractable hand strap 470, wherein the length and position are determined via various sensors within the controller (e.g. col. 10 lines 24-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide similar sensors and tensioning mechanism in the controller of Boev in order to enable quick adjustment of the strap to the user’s preferred strap length.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boev (US 2018/0161670) in view of Birkestrand (US 8,851,142).
Regarding claim 12, Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose a brushes at the strap exit point. Birkestrand teaches a related retractable device wherein a retractable member moving through the exit point 38b, the exit point being lined with a flock or bush material 43 so the retractable member 18 is automatically cleaned when moved in and out of the housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide brushes at the exit point of the Boev device/strap in order to clean the strap as it is moved into and out of the controller. See Birkestrand col. 4 lines 41-44.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boev (US 2018/0161670) in view of Bell et al. (US 5,615,811).
Regarding claim 14, Boev discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose a layer of low friction material at the strap exit point. Bell teaches a retractable strap section having friction reducing means 102/104 (specifically layers of polypropylene) used to provide a smooth surface against which the movable sections of the strap 10 can slide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a similar low friction material at any point on the Boev device where the strap would slide, e.g. the exit point of the strap, in order to allow the strap to slide easily into and out of the controller housing. See Bell, col. 13 lines 49-67.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734