DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed December 3, 2025 in which claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
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
Applicant’s First Argument: Objection to claim 1 for informalities should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed as to the bases of objection detailed in the prior office action, however claim 1 is now objected to for minor informalities based on current amendments to claim 2 (see claim objections to claims 1 and 2, detailed below).
Applicant’s Second Argument: Rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over US Pub No. 2019/0014840 Fung et al. in view of USPN 4,122,847 Craig and in further view of US Pub No. 2014/0318565 Ito et al. should be withdrawn at least because Fung does not disclose “resin foam” and Craig is non-analogous art.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Fung does not expressly disclose a buffering sheet having a layer that is a resin foam layer, Craig teaches a sheet configured to be placed on the face of a wearer (see Figures 1-5; col. 2, line 4 – col. 4, line 51), with that sheet comprising a resin foam layer (col. 2, lines 25-36). A reference constitutes “analogous art” to the claimed invention if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) (see MPEP 2141.01(a)). In the instant case, Craig satisfies at least prong (1) of the test for determining whether it qualifies as analogous art. Specifically, like the invention of the instant application, Craig is drawn to a sheet of resin foam material configured to be placed on the face of a wearer and around the eyes of the wearer (see Figure 5 of the instant application and Figure 4 of Craig, reproduced below for convenience), the same field of endeavor. As such, Craig qualifies as analogous prior art regardless of whether it is intended to address a different problem than that identified by the instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
449
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Third Argument: Rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over US Pub No. 2019/0014840 Fung et al. in view of USPN 4,122,847 Craig and in further view of US Pub No. 2014/0318565 Ito et al. should be withdrawn at least because the sheet of Ito is a nonwoven sheet with an elongation of 50% or more rather than a resin foam sheet with an elongation of 50% or more.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ito is cited for teaching a sheet configured to be placed on the face of a wearer and around the eyes of the wearer, with that sheet having an elongation of 50% or more. Craig is cited for the teaching of a resin foam sheet, not Ito. Ito teaches a sheet which can be made of thermoplastic resin material (para. 0061), with that sheet of thermoplastic resin material having an elongation of 50% or more (para. 0071). As such, it is respectfully maintained that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to configure the buffering sheet of the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig) to have an elongation of 50% or more because Ito teaches that it is known to provide a sheet of thermoplastic resin material configured to be placed against the face of a wearer and around the eyes of the wearer, with that sheet having an elongation of 50% or more to provide desired stretchability characteristics (para. 0071). The rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following minor informalities: Claim 1 recites the term “wearer” while claim 2 recites the term “user.” For further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that the claims be amended to each recite either “wearer” or “user” rather than a combination of both terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation “wherein the attachment portion includes consists of the sheet.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because the meaning of the phrase “includes consists of” is not understood. It is further respectfully noted that if the limitation were amended to recite, for example, merely “wherein the attachment portion consists of the sheet,” it would remain indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the attachment portion consisting of the sheet. It is respectfully asserted that such a phrasing would not be understood to signify that, for example, the attachment portion forms a portion of the sheet or that the attachment portion constitutes a portion of the sheet, etc.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2019/0014840 Fung et al. in view of USPN 4,122,847 Craig and in further view of US Pub No. 2014/0318565 Ito et al.
To claim 1, Fung discloses a buffering sheet for goggles (see Figures 1-2, reproduced below for convenience; paras. 0011-0013), comprising:
a buffering portion configured to be disposed on a face of a wearer (see Figures 1-2; paras. 0011-0013);
an attachment portion (14) that is configured to be used for attachment to a head of the wearer (see Figures 1-2; paras. 0011-0013);
wherein the buffering portion is formed by a sheet of perspiration absorbing material (see especially Figure 2; paras. 0007-0008).
PNG
media_image3.png
901
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
897
581
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fung discloses a buffering sheet comprising a sheet of perspiration absorbing material (see especially Figure 2; paras. 0007-0008). Fung does not explicitly disclose the sheet of material being “resin foam.” As such, it is noted that Craig teaches a buffering sheet (see Figures 1-5; col. 2, line 4 – col. 4, line 51) comprising a resin foam layer (col. 2, lines 25-36).
Fung and Craig teach analogous inventions in the field of facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the material of Fung to be a resin foam as taught by Craig because Craig teaches that this configuration is known in the art and that such materials are lightweight, inexpensive, flexible, and relatively soft thereby providing excellent mask base material for being comfortably secured to a wearer (col. 2, lines 25-36). It is further respectfully noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
The modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig, as detailed above) is silent as to the elongation percentage of the sheet.
However, Ito teaches a buffering sheet (see Figures 1-33; para. 0001) comprising a sheet wherein an elongation percentage of the sheet is 50% or more (para. 0071).
The modified invention of Fung and Ito teach analogous inventions in the field of facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sheet of the modified invention of Fung such that the elongation percentage of the sheet is 50% or more as taught by Ito because Ito teaches that this configuration is known in the art and provides desired stretchability and face-fitting capabilities (para. 0071). It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 2, insofar as definite and as best understood by Examiner, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) further teaches a buffering sheet wherein the attachment portion includes consists of the sheet (see Figures 1-2 and paras. 0011-0013 of Fung), and the attachment portion has an ear hooking hole configured to be hooked on an ear of the user (see Figures 1-2 and paras. 0011-0013 of Fung; as depicted in Figures 1-2 of Fung, attachment portion 14 of Fung forms a portion of sheet 20 of Fung and has hooking holes configured to accept respective ears of the user).
To claim 3, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) further teaches a buffering sheet wherein an upper edge of the buffering portion has a convex shape bulging upward (see Figures 1-2 and paras. 0011-0013 of Fung).
To claim 4, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) teaches a buffering sheet as recited in claim 1, above.
The modified invention of Fung does not expressly teach a buffering sheet wherein a thickness of the sheet is 1.0 mm or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the buffering sheet of the modified invention of Fung such that thickness of the sheet is 1.0 mm or more as a matter of routine optimization in adapting the buffering sheet to comfortable when used with a VR headset. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 5, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) teaches a buffering sheet as recited in claim 1, above.
The modified invention of Fung does not expressly teach a buffering sheet wherein 25% ILD hardness of the sheet is 40 N or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the buffering sheet of the modified invention of Fung such that 25% ILD hardness of the sheet is 40 N or more as a matter of routine optimization in adapting the buffering sheet to comfortable when used with a VR headset. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 6, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) further teaches a buffering sheet wherein an upper edge of the buffering portion has a convex shape bulging upward, and a lower edge of the buffering portion has a concave shape recessed upward (see Figures 1-2 and paras. 0011-0013 of Fung).
To claim 7, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) further teaches a buffering sheet wherein the upper edge and the lower edge of the buffering portion are curves (see Figures 1-2 and paras. 0011-0013 of Fung).
To claim 8, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) further teaches a buffering sheet wherein the upper edge of the buffering portion and an upper edge of the attachment portion are curves as wholes, and the lower edge of the buffering portion and a lower edge of the attachment portion are curves as wholes (see Figures 1-2 and paras. 0011-0013 of Fung).
To claim 9, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) further teaches a buffering sheet wherein the attachment portion extends from the buffering portion so as to be inclined obliquely downward (see Figures 1-2 and paras. 0011-0013 of Fung).
To claim 10, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) teaches a buffering sheet as recited in claim 1, above.
The modified invention of Fung does not expressly teach a buffering sheet wherein the elongation percentage of the sheet is 70% or more, and 25% ILD hardness of the sheet is 80 N or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the buffering sheet of the modified invention of Fung such that the elongation percentage of the sheet is 70% or more, and 25% ILD hardness of the sheet is 80 N or more as a matter of routine optimization in adapting the buffering sheet to comfortable when used with a VR headset. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fung in view of Craig and Ito (as applied to claim 1, above) in further view of JP 2016-170431 Kurihara.
To claim 11, the modified invention of Fung (i.e., Fung in view of Craig and Ito, as detailed above) teaches a buffering sheet for goggles as detailed above.
The modified invention of Fung does not disclose a buffering sheet for goggles wherein the buffering portion is provided with an eye-opening portion located at one location at a center of the buffering portion.
However, Kurihara teaches a wherein the buffering portion is provided with an eye-opening portion located at one location at a center of the buffering portion (see Figures 1-4).
The modified invention of Fung and Kurihara teach analogous inventions in the field of buffering sheets for goggles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the buffering sheet for goggles of the modified invention of Fung to be provided with an eye-opening portion located at one location at a center of the buffering portion as taught by Kurihara because Kurihara teaches that this configuration is known in the art. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a buffering sheet with a single eye-opening portion would be suitable for users with a variety of different face and eye shapes, including users with eyes that are set relatively closely to one another as well as users with relatively widely-spaced eyes.
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 GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732