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.
Claim 34 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.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the top strap portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 28-33, 35-41, and 51-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reitz (US 2017.0367423).
Regarding claim 28, Reitz disclose:
A positioning and stabilising structure for holding a head-mounted display unit in an operative position on a user's head, the positioning and stabilising structure comprising: a ring strap portion forming a ring shape including an occipital strap portion being constructed and arranged to engage a region of the user's head overlying the occipital bone or overlying the parietal bones proximate the occipital bone; and a pair of lateral strap portions configured to extend along respective sides of the user's head in use, each lateral strap portion having 1) a posterior end portion connected to a respective side of the ring strap portion at a connection location, and 2) an anterior end portion adapted to connect to a respective lateral side of a head-mounted display unit, wherein, when the positioning and stabilising structure is worn in use, each connection location is positioned superior to the anterior end portion of the respective lateral strap portion (see Fig. 1, 5-6; position and stabilizing structure 10 to hold display portion G; ring portion 12/14 forming a ring shape to engage users head over occipital bone or parietal bones; lateral strap portion 24 having posterior end connecting to ring portion and anterior end adapted to connect to HMD G; wherein when in use the connection location is superior to the anterior end of 24)
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the lateral strap portions extends at least partially superiorly in a direction from the anterior end portion to the posterior end portion (see Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 30, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the ring strap portion is structured to substantially hold an in-use shape when the positioning and stabilising structure is not donned by the user (see Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 31, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the positioning and stabilising structure is configured to resist angular change between the superior transverse strap portion and the occipital strap portion when the lateral strap portions are tensioned in use (see Fig. 1, 6)
Regarding claim 32, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
a width of the occipital strap portion measured transversely to a length of the occipital strap portion is greater than a width of the superior transverse strap portion measured transversely to a length of the superior transverse strap portion (see Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 33, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
a thickness of the ring strap portion is greater than a thickness of the lateral strap portions (see Fig. 5; at 10, ring portion greater thickness than 24)
Regarding claim 35, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the ring strap portion comprises a plurality of segments formed separately and joined together to form the ring strap portion (see Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 36, the rejection of claim 35 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the segments comprise a superior segment, a pair of lateral segments and an inferior segment (see Fig. 2; superior segment 17; lateral segments 26; inferior segment 16/18)
Regarding claim 37, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the ring strap portion comprises at least a pair of hinges, each hinge being located proximate one of the connection locations between the ring strap portion and a respective one of the lateral strap portions (see Fig. 5; hinge 22/26)
Regarding claim 38, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
each of the lateral strap portions is selectively adjustable in length (see [0021]; where 24 is elastic, thus adjustable in length)
Regarding claim 39, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the lateral strap portions is configured to be secured to itself to form a loop that is adapted to connect to the head-mounted display unit (see Fig. 4; loop connection to HMD)
Regarding claim 40, the rejection of claim 39 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
each of the lateral strap portions is configured to be secured to itself with a hook-and-loop connection (see Fig. 1, 4-6)
Regarding claim 41, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the occipital strap portion is constructed and arranged to be positioned at or proximate the Frankfort Horizontal plane of the user's head in use (see Fig. 1, 6).
Regarding claim 51, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the ring strap portion has increased rigidity in areas directly adjacent the connection locations as compared to a rigidity in at least one other area of the ring strap portion (see [0021]; where 26 is more rigid than 12)
Regarding claim 52, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the ring strap portion further includes a superior transverse strap portion constructed and arranged to engage a superior region of the user's head at or proximate a coronal plane (see Fig. 1, 5-6)
Regarding claim 53, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
a head-mounted display unit comprising: a display unit housing comprising a display; and an interfacing structure connected to the display unit housing and constructed and arranged to engage the user's face in use; and the positioning and stabilising structure (see Fig. 1, 5-6)
Regarding claim 54, the rejection of claim 53 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the head-mounted display unit comprises a pair of arms extending posteriorly from respective lateral sides of the display unit housing, the lateral strap portions each being configured to attach to a respective one of the arms (see Fig. 1, 5-6; arm connecting G to 24)
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) 42-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitz in view of Shin (US 2017.0153972).
Regarding claim 42, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz is not explicit as to, but Shin disclose:
the positioning and stabilising structure further comprises a top strap portion connected to the superior transverse strap portion or the occipital strap portion and configured to extend anteriorly therefrom, in use, over a portion of the user's head overlying the user's frontal bone, the top strap portion being adapted to connect to the head-mounted display unit (see Fig. 2-4; top strap 150 connects to occipital strap portion and to HMD 100).
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 know techniques of Shin to that of Reitz, to predictably provide and adjustable support portion for the top of the head, further stabilizing the device for the user ([0057]).
Regarding claim 43, the rejection of claim 42 is incorporated herein. Reitz further disclose:
the ring strap portion has a rigidity at a location along its length that is different than the rigidity at a location along a length of each lateral strap portion (see [0024]; 12/14 different rigidity than 24)
Regarding claim 44, the rejection of claim 42 is incorporated herein. Shin further disclose:
the top strap portion is selectively adjustable in length (see [0057]).
Regarding claim 45, the rejection of claim 44 is incorporated herein. While Shin discloses the top strap secured to the head mounted display, it is not explicit as to a loop strap connection, but 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., a loop strap coupling) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 46, the rejection of claim 45 is incorporated herein. While Shin discloses the top strap secured to the head mounted display, it is not explicit as to a hook-and-loop connection, but 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., a hook-and-loop coupling) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 47-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitz in view of Han (CN 106681006).
Regarding claim 47, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Reitz is not explicit as to, but Han disclose wider strap at the top of head provides enhanced stability and comfort (see pg. 2; where).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention and in light of the Han disclosure, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to increase the width of the strap at the upper portion of the head, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 48, the rejection of claim 47 is incorporated herein. Reitz is not explicit as to, but Han disclose wider strap at the top of head provides enhanced stability and comfort (see pg. 2; where).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention and in light of the Han disclosure, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to increase the width of the strap at the upper portion of the head such that it is greater than the width of the other portions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 49, the rejection of claim 48 is incorporated herein. While Han superior strap with an anterior and posterior edge, it is not explicit as to, the curvature to create the increased width, but 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., curving the anterior edge more than the posterior edge to create a greater width) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 50, the rejection of claim 49 is incorporated herein. While Reitz as modified by Han is not explicit as to the anterior edge curves anteriorly in lateral to medial directions and the posterior edge is substantially not curved anteriorly or posteriorly, it has not be claimed or described as essential to the invention, but rather a mere design choice which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention. Further, 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 to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitz in view of Hu (US 2018.0321703).
Regarding claim 55, the rejection of claim 54 is incorporated herein. Reitz is not explicit as to, but Hu disclose:
the arms are pivotably attached to the display unit housing (see Fig. 2; arm 122 pivotably connected to HMD 110 by way of 130).
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 know techniques of Hu to that of Reitz, to predictably allow for tightness adjustment of the HMD device ([0022]).
Conclusion
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights