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 .
Response to Arguments
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Finality of the action of 11 February 2026 has been withdrawn as the 112 rejection has been overcome. Applicant’s arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of a new rejection.
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) 21, 29, 41, 47-49, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coatney (US 2019.0227328) in view of Tricoukes (US 2011.0089207).
Regarding claim 21, Coatney disclose:
A head-mounted display system comprising: a head-mounted display unit comprising a display; a positioning and stabilising structure configured to hold the head-mounted display unit in an operable position on the user's head in use, the positioning and stabilising structure comprising: a posterior support portion configured to engage a posterior portion of a user's head; and an anterior support portion connecting the posterior support portion and the head- mounted display unit in use, wherein the anterior support portion comprises an inextensible frontal support portion; wherein the head-mounted display system further includes: a pair of superior support pads each located between the posterior support portion and the anterior support portion and configured to lie against an at least partially superior- facing portion of the user's head in use, wherein the pair of superior support pads spaced apart from one another, and wherein the support pads are not directly connected to each other across a superior surface of the user's head; and wherein the superior support pads are dimensioned to not intersect the patient's sagittal plane in use (see Fig. 2-4, 7-8; [0032]; HMD system 12, HMD display unit 20; position/stabilizing structure 50 configured to hold HMD 20 in an operable position on user’s head; posterior support (rear) and anterior support portion 68 with inextensible material (e.g., pvc, metal) to hold display unit 20 when in use, pair of anterior support portions 56 and 60 configured to lie against part of superior facing portion of the user’s head, not directly connected to each other along the superior surface, in order to help distribute weight of HMD when in use).
Coatney is not explicit as to, but Tricoukes disclose:
wherein the superior support pads are dimensioned to not intersect the patient's sagittal plane in use, and are indirectly connected to each other by a separate superior strap that extends between the superior support pads and configured to lay across the superior surface of the user's head (see Fig. 1, 3; [0022, 0040]; superior supports 222/282 indirectly connected via strap 180/280 that intersects sagittal plane when in use and lays across superior surface of the user’s head)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Tricoukes to that of Coatney to predictably provide an indirect connection across the superior surface of the user’s head to add further stabilization to the head piece ([0022]).
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. While Coatney at [0032] describes superior pads made of stiff material (e.g., plastics, metals, etc.), it is not explicit as to, but Tricoukes provides at [0040] a superior strap to be thin an flexible. As such, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (e.g., providing superior pads stiffer than the superior strap material) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success
Regarding claim 41, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
the posterior support portion comprises an inextensible occipital strap portion (see [0032]).
Regarding claim 47, claim 41 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 21.
Regarding claim 48, the rejection of claim 47 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
each of the superior support pads extends superiorly and medially from the band portion on a respective side of the user's head (see Fig. 2-4, 7).
Regarding claim 49, the rejection of claim 47 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
each of the superior support pads curves medially to cup the sides of the user's head (see Fig. 2-4, 7).
Regarding claim 60, claim 60 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 29.
Claim(s) 22-26, 28, 30-36, 43-46, 50-51, and 54-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coatney and Tricoukes in view of Baudou (US 2020.0301152).
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Coatney and Tricoukes not explicit as to, but Baudou disclose:
the posterior support portion comprises an occipital strap portion configured to overlie or lie below an occipital bone of the user's head (see Fig. 3; occipital strap 14)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Baudou to that of Coatney and Tricoukes to predictably adapt the HMD to the morphological variations of the human head ([0030]).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
the anterior support portion comprises a frontal support portion configured to engage the user's head at a region overlying a frontal bone of the user's head (see Fig. 2-4, 7)
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
the positioning and stabilizing structure comprises a band portion configured to fit around the user's head, the band portion comprising the occipital strap portion and the frontal support portion (see Fig. 2-4, 7)
Regarding claim 25, the rejection of claim 24 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
each of the superior support pads extends superiorly and medially from the band portion on a respective side of the user's head (see Fig. 2-4, 7)
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
each of the superior support pads curves medially (see Fig. 2-4, 7)
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of claim 26 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
each superior support pad is flexible and configured to be bent to achieve a desired curvature (see [0025], where Coatney describes 50 being adjustable, and metal can be bent, thus it would have been further obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (e.g., various materials to make adjustments for comfort and secure sizing) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success)
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 24 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
each of the superior support pads is located at or proximate a mid-coronal plane of the user's head in use (see Fig. 2-4, 7)
Regarding claim 30, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
the positioning and stabilising structure comprises a frontal connector connected between the frontal support portion and the head-mounted display unit (see Fig. 2-4; 7; [0034]; frontal connector 68)
Regarding claim 31, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. Coatney further disclose:
the frontal connector is located in the sagittal plane of the user's head (see Fig. 2-4; 7; [0034]; frontal connector 68)
Regarding claim 32, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. Baudou further disclose:
the frontal connector is configured to pivot with respect to the frontal support portion (see Fig. 4-5; [0038]).
Regarding claim 33, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. Baudou further disclose:
the head-mounted display unit is configured to pivot with respect to the frontal connector (see Fig. 4-5; [0038]).
Regarding claim 34, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated herein. Coatney and Baudou further disclose:
the occipital strap portion is adjustable in length (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 35, the rejection of claim 24 is incorporated herein. Baudou further disclose:
the occipital strap portion of the positioning and stabilising structure comprises a pair of lateral occipital strap portions, each located on a respective side of the user's head, and a medial occipital strap portion connecting medial ends of the lateral occipital strap portions (see Fig. 1, 3; portions on left and right of 14 and medial connector 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Baudou to that of Coatney and Tricoukes to predictably adapt the HMD to the morphological variations of the human head ([0030]).
Regarding claim 36, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated herein. Baudou further disclose:
the medial occipital strap portion is adjustable in length (see [0030])
Regarding claim 43, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Coatney and Tricoukes are not explicit as to, but Baudou disclose:
the posterior support portion and the anterior support portion are together formed by a plurality of strap portions, and wherein the positioning and stabilising structure further comprises a dial adjustment mechanism comprising a rotatable dial, the dial adjustment mechanism being configured to cause a change in length of at least one of the strap portions when the dial is rotated (see Fig. 1, 3; [0030])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Baudou to that of Coatney and Tricoukes to predictably adapt the HMD to the morphological variations of the human head ([0030]).
Regarding claim 44, the rejection of claim 43 is incorporated herein. Baudou further disclose:
the posterior support portion comprises an occipital strap portion configured to overlie or lie inferior to the occipital bone of the user's head and the dial adjustment mechanism is configured to cause a change in length of the occipital strap portion when the dial is rotated (see Fig. 1, 3; [0030])
Regarding claim 45, the rejection of claim 43 is incorporated herein. Baudou further disclose:
the posterior support portion comprises a parietal strap portion configured to overlie the parietal bones of the user's head and the dial adjustment mechanism is configured to cause a change in length of the parietal strap portion when the dial is rotated (see Fig. 1, 3; [0030])
Regarding claim 46, the rejection of claim 43 is incorporated herein. Baudou further disclose:
the anterior support portion comprises a pair of lateral strap portions configured to connect between the posterior support portion and the head-mounted display unit, each configured to be located on a respective lateral side of the user's head in use, and the dial adjustment mechanism is configured to cause a change in length of the lateral strap portions (see Fig. 1, 3; lateral strap 16 dial 17)
Regarding claims 50-51 and 54-57, claims 50-51 and 54-57 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 27-28 and 43-46, respectively.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coatney and Tricoukes and Baudou in view of Hu (US 2018.0321707).
Regarding claim 37, the rejection of claim 36 is incorporated herein. Coatney and Tricoukes and Baudou are not explicit as to, but Hu disclose:
the medial occipital strap portion is elastically extendable (see Fig. 7a,b; [0034-0035]; occipital strap elastically expandable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Hu to that of Coatney and Tricoukes as modified by Baudou to predictably provide increased comforted for the wearer of the device ([0036]).
Claim(s) 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coatney and Tricoukes and Baudou in view of Edwards (US 2017.0337737).
Regarding claim 38, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated herein. Coatney and Tricoukes and Baudou are not explicit as to, but Edwards disclose:
the head-mounted display system further comprises a battery pack for powering the head-mounted display system, the battery pack connected to the occipital strap portion (see Fig. 8; [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Edwards to that of Coatney and Tricoukes and Baudou to predictably provide wireless power to the device.
Regarding claim 39, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated herein. Edwards further disclose:
the battery pack is configured to be located in a sagittal plane of the user's head in use (see Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 58-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coatney and Tricoukes in view of Pombo (US 2013.0285886).
Claim 58 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, while Tricoukes at Fig. 5 and [0028] provides adjustment device 289 it is not explicit as to, but Pombo disclose:
a dial adjustment mechanism comprising a rotatable dial, the dial adjustment mechanism being configured to cause a change in length of the posterior support portion when the dial is rotated (see Fig. 10; [0073]; wheel 1002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Pombo to that of Coatney and Tricoukes to predictably allow for an adjustable size and fit of the HMD ([0073]).
Regarding claim 59, claim 59 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 29.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached on 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621