CTNF 18/868,872 CTNF 82834 DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-8, 10-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (2012/0188149) . Regarding Claim 1: Yamada teaches a head-mountable device assembly, comprising: a display (10); a power unit (fig. 2, and paragraphs [0033]-[0034]); a cable (3) electrically connecting the display and the power unit (figs. 1-3); and a retraction device (20) configured to collect the cable (figs. 1-3, 6-7). Regarding Claim 2: Yamada teaches wherein: the power unit comprises a housing (figs. 1-3, 6-7) and a battery (figs. 1-3, 6-7); the retraction device is disposed within the housing (figs. 1-3, 6-7); and the cable is collectable within the housing (figs. 1-3, 6-7). Regarding Claim 3: Yamada teaches wherein the retraction device comprises a torsion spring (paragraphs [0067]-[0068] and [0073]-[0074]). Regarding Claim 4: Yamada teaches wherein the retraction device comprises a cable lock (paragraphs [0067]-[0068] and [0073]-[0074]). Regarding Claim 5: Yamada teaches wherein the retraction device comprises a motor that actuates the retraction device in response to an input (paragraphs [0067]-[0068] and [0073]-[0074]). Regarding Claim 6: Yamada teaches a sensor (paragraphs [0078] and [0082]); and a processor configured to actuate the retraction device in response to a signal from the sensor (paragraphs [0078] and [0082]). Regarding Claim 7: Yamada teaches a processor configured to operate the retraction device based on an activity of the display (paragraphs [0078] and [0082]). Regarding Claim 8: Yamada teaches wherein the display comprises a user interface to control the retraction device (paragraph [0078]). Regarding Claim 10: Yamada teaches wherein the retraction device is integrated into the power unit (figs. 1-3, 6-7). Regarding Claim 11: Yamada teaches an electronic accessory for a head-mountable device, comprising: a housing (figs. 1-3, 6-7); a battery disposed within the housing (figs. 1-3, 6-7); and a cable retraction system (20) disposed within the housing (figs. 1-3, 6-7). Regarding Claim 12: Yamada teaches wherein the battery is removable from the housing (figs. 1-3, 6-7). Regarding Claim 13: Yamada teaches the cable retraction system comprising: a motor electrically connected to the battery (figs. 1-3, 6-7); and a spool connected to the motor and the cable (figs. 1-3, 6-7). Regarding Claim 16: Yamada teaches a head-mountable device (HMD), comprising: a display (10); a cable (3) electrically connectable to the head-mountable device (figs. 1-3, 6-7) and to a battery (figs. 1-3, 6-7); and a retraction device (20) configured to collect the cable (figs. 1-3, 6-7), the retraction device comprising: a spool (26) rotatable to collect the cable (figs. 1-3, 6-7); a motor (M) configured to rotate the spool (figs. 1-3, 6-7); and a processor (part of 30) configured to operate the motor based on an activity of the display (figs. 1-3, 6-7 and paragraph [0103]). Regarding Claim 17: Yamada teaches wherein the retraction device retracts the cable in response to detecting slack in the cable (figs. 1-3, 6-7). Regarding Claim 18: Yamada teaches, wherein the retraction device provides a constant pull force on the cable (figs. 1-3, 6-7). Regarding Claim 19: Yamada teaches wherein the retraction device comprises a torsion spring (25) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (2012/0188149) . Regarding Claim 14: Yamada lacks a specific teaching of wherein the cable has a length between 50 mm and 2 meters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yamada by having the cable has a length between 50 mm and 2 meters in order to allow the user a comfortable usage range of the cable while still in turn having full proper functionality of the overall apparatus wherein this would be accomplished merely by choosing the proper length of the apparatus wherein it has been held that a mere change in size of the disclosed components of an invention is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237. Regarding Claim 15: Yamada lacks a specific teaching of wherein the retraction device imparts a pull force of between approximately 30 grams to approximately 300 grams on the cable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yamada by having the retraction device imparts a pull force of between approximately 30 grams to approximately 300 grams on the cable in order to allow the user a comfortable usage range of the cable with a proper amount of force and ease while still in turn having full proper functionality of the overall apparatus wherein this would be accomplished merely by choosing the proper tension required along the cable wherein it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (2012/0188149) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Osterhout (10,860,100) . Regarding Claim 9: Yamada lacks a specific teaching of further comprising an encoder to determine an uncollected length of the cable. Osterhout further comprising an encoder to determine an uncollected length of the cable (col. 144 lines 18-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yamada by having further comprising an encoder to determine an uncollected length of the cable in order to allow the user a comfortable usage range of the cable while still in turn having full proper functionality of the overall apparatus. Regarding Claim 20: Yamada lacks a specific teaching of further comprising an encoder to determine an uncollected length of the cable. Osterhout further comprising an encoder to determine an uncollected length of the cable (col. 144 lines 18-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Yamada by having further comprising an encoder to determine an uncollected length of the cable in order to allow the user a comfortable usage range of the cable while still in turn having full proper functionality of the overall apparatus . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the PTO-892 Notice of References but not relied upon for the rejections above relate to the current application as they teach multiple ways of retracting cable specifically related to head worn electronic devices . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p. 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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. /ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/868,872 Page 2 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/868,872 Page 3 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/868,872 Page 4 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/868,872 Page 5 Art Unit: 2841 Application/Control Number: 18/868,872 Page 6 Art Unit: 2841
Prosecution Insights