DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 3-9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law (US 2024/0111163) in view of Lucas (US 10,515,484).
Regarding claim 1, Law discloses a wearable device (750, fig. 16A), comprising:
a display (720, fig. 16A);
a connecting band (760, fig. 16A);
a fulcrum strap (780, fig. 16A) positioned above the connecting band (see fig. 16A);
a counterbalance strap (764, fig. 16A) positioned below the connecting band (see fig. 16A); and
a weighted (790, fig. 16A and para. 592, wherein 790 is a counter weight) and cushioned (see interlocking connection of 790 to strap portion in para. 592; wherein the interlocking connection provides a layer of cushion between the battery pack and strap) pad attached to the counterbalance strap (para. 592), the weighted pad being positionally adjustable to at least partially counterbalance a weight of the display about the fulcrum strap (para. 592, 611, 430; wherein the location of the counter weight is adjustable to fit different head sizes).
Law fails to disclose the connecting band comprising a processor.
Lucas discloses a connecting band comprising a processor (see col. 3-4, lines 61-4; wherein a processor can be located in a head strap).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Lucas in the device of Law. The motivation for doing so would have been to further distribute the weight of the electrical components of the HMD by placing the processor on the head strap of the HMD (Lucas; col. 3-4, lines 61-4 and fig. 3; ultimately for weight distribution to increase comfort).
Regarding claim 3, Law discloses wherein: the weighted and cushioned pad is positioned in a Z-direction lower than the connection point (see 790 in fig. 16A and para. 592); and
a center of gravity for the wearable device is positioned below the connection point (see center of mass in para. 611; wherein the center of mass is located near the ear of the user, below the junction point of the straps in fig. 16A).
Regarding claim 4, Law disclose wherein the connecting band comprises a first moment arm (780, fig. 16A and para. 633) and the counterbalance strap comprises a second moment arm (764, fig. 16A and para. 633).
Regarding claim 5, Law discloses wherein an angle between the fulcrum strap and the counterbalance strap is adjustable (para. 633).
Regarding claim 6, Law discloses wherein the counterbalance strap is rigid (para. 636-637).
Regarding claim 7, Law discloses wherein a length of the counterbalance strap is adjustable (para. 633).
Regarding claim 8, Law discloses wherein the weighted and cushioned pad is centered along the counterbalance strap (see 790 in fig. 16A).
Regarding claim 9, Law discloses wherein the weighted and cushioned pad is removable from the counterbalance strap (para. 592).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law in view of Lucas in further view of Davidson (US 2023/0152594).
Regarding claim 2, Law discloses further comprising a connection point (see round junction connecting 760, 780, 764 in fig. 16A and para 722, wherein the angles of separation of the straps is adjustable) coupling the connecting band, the fulcrum strap, and the counterbalance strap (see fig. 16A).
Law fails to disclose wherein the coupling is rotatably coupling.
Davidson disclose a connection point (1260, in fig. 5A-5B and para. 1121) rotatably coupling the connecting band, the fulcrum strap and the counter balance strap (see straps in fig. 5A-5B).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Davidson in the device of Law. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the adjustable straps to pivot (Davidson in fig. 5A-5B and para. 1121), such that a user can find the a desired fit by adjusting/pivoting the straps.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law in view of Lucas in further view of Davidson (US 2023/0152594).
Regarding claim 21, Law fails to disclose wherein the pad is configured to conform of the a head shape of the user.
Davidson discloses wherein the weighted and cushioned pad (see 1500, including connections 1501, 1502 and 1516 in fig. 68C-D and para. 1377; wherein the battery pack conforms to the head shape of user) is configured to conform to conform to a head shape of the user (para. 1377).
When the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Davidson in the device of Law. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a battery pack which conforms to the head shape of each individual user (Davidson; para. 1377). Ultimately creating more versatility and usability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See new citations above.
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 extension fee 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 ROBIN J MISHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7251. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, NITIN PATEL can be reached on (571)272-7677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBIN J MISHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights