DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claims 19–20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “IPD” should be fully written out for clarity prior to using the abbreviation/acronym (e.g., “interpupillary distance (IPD)”). Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3–6, and 11–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,004,289 to Teetzel et al. (hereinafter “Teetzel_1”)
Regarding Claim 1, Teetzel_1 discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 1 and 7 and their descriptions) a headgear mount system comprising: a mechanical assembly (e.g., 100, Fig. 1) comprising at least one mount assembly (combination of 104 and upper portion of 112 fixed relative to helmet 108, Fig. 1) and at least one tilt/flip assembly 112, wherein the at least one mount assembly connects the mechanical assembly to a headgear 108, wherein the at least one tilt/flip assembly rotatably connects to at least one electro-optical assembly (col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 4, teaching various electro-optical assemblies that can be connected, such as night vision, HMD or HUD devices, etc.), wherein the at least one tilt/flip assembly comprises at least one tilt/flip pin (e.g., 330, Fig. 7, described as an alternative embodiment, such that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the embodiment of Fig. 7 with those of the embodiment of Fig. 1) interconnecting the at least one mount assembly and the at least one electro-optical assembly (Fig. 7), wherein the at least one tilt/flip pin extends through at least one carriage connector (e.g., 404) of the at least one mount assembly and at least one pivot cylinder (e.g., 320) connected to the at least one electro-optical assembly (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one mount assembly comprises at least one headgear interface (e.g., 104, Fig. 1) connecting the mechanical assembly to a headgear (e.g., helmet 108).
Regarding Claim 4, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one mount assembly further comprises at least one height adjuster carriage slidably mounted to the at least one headgear interface (e.g., Fig. 7, set and lock assembly 420 that allows height adjustment, described in col. 8. Iines 17–44; further where adjusting the height using alternative known mechanical connections which would yield predictable results would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 5, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one mount assembly further comprises at least one height adjuster connected to the at least one height adjuster carriage whereby actuation of the at least one height adjuster enables the at least one height adjuster carriage to move with respect to the at least one headgear interface (.g., Fig. 7, set and lock assembly 420 that allows height adjustment, described in col. 8. Iines 17–44, including locking screws 434; further where adjusting the height using alternative known mechanical connections which would yield predictable results would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 6, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one tilt/flip assembly further comprises at least one tilt/flip knob (e.g., 360, Fig. 7) connected to the at least one tilt/flip pin for manual rotation of the at least one tilt/flip pin (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one tilt/flip assembly further comprises a flip lock pin (e.g., 326, Fig. 7) mounted to a lock pin carrier (e.g., 324, Fig. 7) located inside of the tilt/flip pin (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein an operational lock slot extends through the at least one pivot cylinder such that the at least one pivot cylinder is locked in an operational position when the flip lock pin extends through the operational lock slot (e.g., 332/336, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein movement of the lock pin carrier inward aligns the flip lock pin with a flip slot on an inner surface of the tilt/flip pin, allowing the pivot cylinder to rotate around the tilt/flip pin to a stowed position (e.g., Fig. 7; col. 8, line 56 to col. 9, line 23).
Regarding Claim 14, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the flip lock pin is biased outwardly via a compression spring 334 (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 15, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious a fore/aft adjustment rail (e.g., 138, Fig. 7) extending from the at least one pivot cylinder and a base mount (e.g., 408, Fig. 7) slidably connected to the fore/aft adjustment rail (col. 9, lines 5–23).
Regarding Claim 16, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious a pivoting mount rotatably connected to the base mount (looking to Fig. 12B, release actuator 820 pivotally attached to upper carriage member 712 about rotation axis 824; col. 12, lines 47–50).
Regarding Claim 17, Teetzel_1 would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one electro-optical assembly is removably attached to the pivoting mount (col. 12, lines 11–16).
Claims 2, 8, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel_1 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0327962 to Teetzel et al. (Teetzel_2).
Regarding Claim 2, Teetzel_1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one mount assembly comprises a right mount assembly and a left mount assembly.
Teetzel_2 discloses a headgear mounting system similar to Teetzel_1, and Teetzel_2 teaches both right eye and left eye devices may be mounted for improved functionality and control (e.g., paragraph [0002] and Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Teetzel_1 such that the at least one mount assembly comprises a right mount assembly and a left mount assembly, as suggested by Teetzel_2, in order to improve functionality and control of the devices.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Teetzel_1 and Teetzel_2 would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one tilt/flip pin comprises two tilt/flip pins and the at least one tilt/flip knob comprises two tilt/flip knobs, wherein each of the two tilt/flip knobs is connected to an end of one of the two tilt/flip pins (e.g., Teetzel_2, where each assembly would include a tilt/flip knob and pin).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Teetzel_1 and Teetzel_2 would have rendered obvious wherein an offset adjuster screw extends through the pivoting mount to the base mount such that rotation of the offset adjuster screw changes a length of a shank of the offset adjuster screw extending between the pivoting mount and the base mount, thereby rotating the pivoting mount and changing the angle of the pivoting mount relative to the base mount (where Teetzel_2 teaches various adjustments may be made to the device, paragraphs [0020]–[0021] and [0029], including changing the angle of the pivoting mount, such that using known adjustment techniques to achieve the desired adjustments would have been obvious, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features; MPEP § 2144.04,06–07).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Teetzel_1 and Teetzel_2 would have rendered obvious an IPD spring extending between a first spring mount point on the base mount and a second spring mount point on the pivoting mount (where Teetzel_2 teaches adjusting IPD using linear side-to-side adjustment, paragraph [0029], and teaches using springs to bias adjusting mechanisms, paragraphs [0030]–[0031], reasonably suggesting spring adjustable IPD as claimed).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Teetzel_1 and Teetzel_2 would have rendered obvious wherein the IPD spring changes rotational force bias at an intermediary transition point between an operational position of the pivoting mount and a stow position of the pivoting mount (e.g., Teetzel_2 paragraphs [0020]–[0021] and [0029]–[0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights