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
Claim 79 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 79 recites a typo for term “stabilising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites “An interfacing structure …. comprising”.
Claim 79 recites “A head-mounted display system, comprising:
…
.. according to claim 1 ….”.
Preamble of claim 79 “A head-mounted display system” is much broader than Claim 1 “An interfacing structure”.
Therefore, claim scope of claim 79 is much broader than claim 1.
Thus, claim 79 is improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 – 13, 26, 27, 30 – 33, 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20210106464 A1) in view of Markovsky et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20180341286 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Meunier disclose An interfacing structure for a head-mounted display system, the interfacing structure configured to engage a user's face around at least a portion of a periphery of a user's eye region in use, the interfacing structure comprising:
a cushion (Figs. 1 - 7, cushion 100) at least partially formed by a lattice structure; (Figs. 1 - 7, [0030] lattice cells 110 [0028])
wherein the interfacing structure comprises a pair of cheek portions configured to engage the user's cheeks in use, (Fig. 8, [0040] For example, cushion 100 may be separated into a right brow zone 170, center brow zone 171, left brow zone 172, right outer cheek zone 176, right inner cheek zone 173, nose zone 174, left inner cheek zone 175, and left outer cheek zone 177 as shown in FIG. 8. Each of these zones of cushion 100 may have a constant compressibility throughout the zone. The compressibility of each zone may be different than the compressibility of any or all of the other zones or can be approximately the same as one or more of the other zones.) a forehead portion configured to engage the user's forehead in use, (Fig. 8, [0040] For example, cushion 100 may be separated into a right brow zone 170, center brow zone 171, left brow zone 172,) and a pair of sphenoid portions located on respective lateral sides of the interfacing structure connecting between the forehead portion and the cheek portions and configured to engage the user's head proximate the sphenoid bone, (Fig. 8, [0043] Further, in some embodiments, the lateral side regions 178 and 179 of cushion 100 can be zones for transitioning the compressibility from low in the brow to high in the cheek and nose. For example, the lower portion of lateral side regions 178 and 179 of cushion 100 can be highly compressible with a compressibility closer to the cheek zone, for example about 70% the stiffness of the brow zones. In some embodiments, the upper portion of the lateral side regions 178 and 179 can have compressibility closer to the brow zones, for example, about 85-95% the stiffness of the brow zones.) the cushion being provided within each of the cheek portions, forehead portion and sphenoid portion; (Fig. 1-8, [0040] – [0044]) and
wherein the lattice structure comprises one or more characteristics that vary between locations corresponding to one the cheek portions, forehead portion and sphenoid portions of the interfacing structure. ([0028] Cushion 100 comprises a continuous and uninterrupted lattice structure that includes lattice cells 110 defined by lattice elements 120. An enlarged view of a portion of cushion 100 with single lattice cell 100 and corresponding lattice elements 120 is shown in FIG. 5a . Lattice cells 110 are the cells, e.g., openings, that make up cushion 100. Lattice elements 120 are the elements, e.g., walls, that define the shape of the lattice cells 110. Thus, in FIG. 5a , the single lattice cell 110 is shown as a hexagon shaped cell, and lattice elements 120 are visible and form the six sides of the exemplary lattice cell 110. Lattice elements 120 are made of an elastically deformable material. In some embodiments, lattice elements 120 may have a circular cross section when viewed in a plane perpendicular to the axis of lattice elements 120 (i.e. lattice elements 120 may be cylindrically shaped).)
Meunier does not disclose wherein the lattice structure comprises one or more characteristics that vary between locations corresponding to two or more of the cheek portions, forehead portion and sphenoid portions of the interfacing structure.
Markovsky discloses “wherein the lattice structure comprises one or more characteristics that vary between locations corresponding to two or more of the cheek portions, forehead portion and sphenoid portions of the interfacing structure”. ([0029] FIG. 1 is an illustration of a cushioning material of the fit system 20 including multiple collapsible beams 22 formed in a repeating pattern (lattice) and in an uncompressed state. In this illustration, the collapsing beams are organized into a repeating hexagon pattern. Each side of a hexagonal unit is a collapsible beam. [0030] – [0034])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate collapsible beams by Markovsky into device of Meunier. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve efficiency. (Markovsky: [0029])
Regarding claim 2, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the interfacing structure comprises a face engaging flange structured and arranged to be provided around a periphery of an eye region of the user's face and configured to engage the user's face in use, the face engaging flange being flexible and resilient, the face engaging flange at least partially covering the lattice structure. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0040] – [0045] [0029] [0030])
Regarding claim 3, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the interfacing structure comprises an interfacing structure clip configured to attach the interfacing structure to a display unit housing of the head-mounted display system. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0040] – [0045] [0029] [0030])
Regarding claim 5, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the cushion is permanently attached to the interfacing structure clip. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0040] – [0045] [0029] [0030])
Regarding claim 7, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the cushion comprises one or more of the cushion clips are configured to connect to the interfacing structure clip to attach the cushion to the interfacing structure clip. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0040] – [0045] [0029] [0030])
Regarding claim 9, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the face engaging flange extends from the interfacing structure clip. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0040] – [0045] [0029] [0030])
Regarding claim 10, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the interfacing structure clip is configured to form a snap fit connection with the display unit housing. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0040] – [0045] [0029] [0030])
Regarding claim 11, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the interfacing structure further comprises a chassis portion, the face engaging flange being attached to the chassis portion, the chassis portion being stiffer than the face engaging flange and being attached to the interfacing structure clip. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0046] – [0052])
Regarding claim 12, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the face engaging flange and the chassis portion are integrally formed. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0046] – [0052])
Regarding claim 13, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein one or more of the cushion clips are configured to connect to the chassis portion. (Meunier Figs. 1 – 10 [0040] – [0045] [0029] [0030])
Regarding claim 26, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the cushion is formed from foam having holes therein forming the lattice structure. (Meunier Figs. 1 - 7, cushion 100 [0030] – [0040])
Regarding claim 27, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the size, shape and/or spacing of the holes varies along a length of the cushion and/or between a first side of the cushion and a second side of the cushion. (Meunier Figs. 1 - 7, [0030] – [0040])
Regarding claim 30, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the one or more characteristics of the lattice structure that vary between locations include stiffness of the lattice structure. (Meunier Figs. 1 - 7, [0030] – [0040])
Regarding claim 31, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the one or more characteristics of the lattice structure that vary include shape, thickness, density, spacing, relative orientation and/or material of unit cells forming the lattice structure. (Meunier Figs. 1 - 7, [0030] – [0040])
Regarding claim 32, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the cushion is stiffer in the forehead portion and/or the cheek portions in comparison to the sphenoid portions. (Meunier Figs. 1 - 7, [0030] – [0040])
Regarding claim 33, Meunier and Markovsky disclose wherein the cushion is able to deform to accommodate anthropometric variation to a greater extent in the sphenoid portions than in the forehead portion and/or the cheek portions. (Meunier Figs. 1 - 7, [0022] – [0028])
Regarding claim 79, Meunier and Markovsky disclose A head-mounted display system, comprising: a head-mounted display unit comprising a display unit housing, a display and the interfacing structure according to claim1, the interfacing structure being configured to connect to the display unit housing; (Markovsky [0046] – [0052]) and
a positioning and stabilising structure structured and arranged to hold the head-mounted display unit in an operable position on the user's head in use. (Markovsky [0046] – [0058])
Claims 4, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meunier et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20210106464 A1) in view of Markovsky et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20180341286 A1) in view of Hatfield et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Meunier and Markovsky do not disclose wherein the cushion is removably attached to the interfacing structure clip.
Hatfield discloses wherein the cushion is removably attached to the interfacing structure clip. ([0026] [0246])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate removable cushion by Hatfield into device of Meunier and Markovsky. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve efficiency. (Hatfield: [0026])
Regarding claim 8, Meunier and Markovsky do not disclose wherein the one or more cushion clips are removably attachable to the interfacing structure clip.
Hatfield discloses wherein the one or more cushion clips are removably attachable to the interfacing structure clip. ([0026] [0246])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate removable cushion by Hatfield into device of Meunier and Markovsky. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve efficiency. (Hatfield: [0026])
Regarding claim 14, Meunier and Markovsky do not disclose wherein the cushion clips are removably attachable to the chassis portion.
Hatfield discloses wherein the cushion clips are removably attachable to the chassis portion. ([0026] [0246])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate removable cushion by Hatfield into device of Meunier and Markovsky. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve efficiency. (Hatfield: [0026])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10133305 B1 discloses removable cushion on abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN-NAN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 6pm.
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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at 571-2722963. 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.
/CHUN-NAN LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights