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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0333406 to Lopez et al. (hereinafter “Lopez”).
-From Claim 1: Lopez discloses an extended-reality headset, comprising:
a joint assembly that includes:
a first ring 104 connected to an arm of the extended-reality headset;
a second ring 102 connected to a main body of the extended-reality headset; and
a connecting ring 08 that couples the first ring to the second ring, wherein the connecting ring: comprises a flexible material (108 is a “biasing member” ¶105) such that the first ring and the second ring can remain coupled and move relative to each other, is configured to enable movement along a first degree of freedom (up-down in Figs. 3-4) of the arm of the extended-reality headset relative to the main body of the extended-reality headset, and is configured to enable movement along a second degree of freedom (side-to-side in Figs. 3-4) of the arm of the extended-reality headset relative to the main body of the extended-reality headset, wherein the first degree of freedom is different from the second degree of freedom.
-From Claim 2: Lopez discloses wherein the joint assembly is configured to: have a first orientation when donned upon a first-sized head, wherein the first orientation includes a first measurement along the first degree of freedom and a first measurement along the second degree of freedom; and have a second orientation when donned upon second-sized head (Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 2), that is different in size than the first-sized head, wherein the second orientation includes a second measurement along the first degree of freedom and a second measurement along the second degree of freedom.
-From Claim 3: Lopez discloses wherein the first ring and the second ring are constructed of a first material that is more rigid than a second material of the connecting ring, such that the second material can compress and stretch while being worn by a wearer. (¶105)
-From Claim 6: Lopez discloses wherein the first degree of freedom allows for up to 90 degrees of movement and the second degree of freedom allows for up to 90 degrees of freedom. (See Figs. 7A-7C)
-From Claim 8: Lopez discloses a hinge for an extended-reality headset, comprising:
a joint assembly that includes:
a first ring 104 connected to an arm of the extended-reality headset;
a second ring 102 connected to a main body of the extended-reality headset; and
a connecting ring 108 that couples the first ring to the second ring, wherein the connecting ring: comprises a flexible material (108 is a “biasing member” ¶105) such that the first ring and the second ring can remain coupled and move relative to each other, is configured to enable movement along a first degree of freedom (up-down in Figs. 3-4) of the arm of the extended-reality headset relative to the main body of the extended-reality headset, and is configured to enable movement along a second degree of freedom (side-to-side in Figs. 3-4) of the arm of the extended-reality headset relative to the main body of the extended-reality headset, wherein the first degree of freedom is different from the second degree of freedom.
-From Claim 9: Lopez discloses wherein the joint assembly is configured to: have a first orientation when donned upon a first-sized head, wherein the first orientation includes a first measurement along the first degree of freedom and a first measurement along the second degree of freedom; and have a second orientation when donned upon second-sized head (Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 2), that is different in size than the first-sized head, wherein the second orientation includes a second measurement along the first degree of freedom and a second measurement along the second degree of freedom.
-From Claim 10: Lopez discloses wherein the first ring and the second ring are constructed of a first material that is more rigid than a second material of the connecting ring, such that the second material can compress and stretch while being worn by a wearer. (¶105)
-From Claim 13: Lopez discloses wherein the first degree of freedom allows for up to 90 degrees of movement and the second degree of freedom allows for up to 90 degrees of freedom. (See Figs. 7A-7C)
-From Claim 14: Lopez discloses wherein the joint assembly is configured to allow the extended-reality headset to be donned by persons having at least a 5th percentile to 95ᵗʰ percentile head size.
-From Claim 15: Lopez discloses an extended-reality system, comprising:
an extended-reality headset that includes a joint assembly that comprises:
a first ring 104 connected to an arm of the extended-reality headset;
a second ring 102 connected to a main body of the extended-reality headset; and
a connecting ring 108 that couples the first ring to the second ring, wherein the connecting ring comprises a flexible material (108 is a “biasing member” ¶105) such that the first ring and the second ring can remain coupled and move relative to each other, is configured to enable movement along a first degree of freedom (up-down in Figs. 3-4) of the arm of the extended-reality headset relative to the main body of the extended-reality headset, and is configured to enable movement along a second degree of freedom (side-to-side in Figs. 3-4) of the arm of the extended-reality headset relative to the main body of the extended-reality headset, wherein the first degree of freedom is different from the second degree of freedom.
-From Claim 16: Lopez discloses wherein the joint assembly is configured to: have a first orientation when donned upon a first-sized head, wherein the first orientation includes a first measurement along the first degree of freedom and a first measurement along the second degree of freedom; and have a second orientation when donned upon second-sized head, (Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 2) that is different in size than the first-sized head, wherein the second orientation includes a second measurement along the first degree of freedom and a second measurement along the second degree of freedom.
-From Claim 17: Lopez discloses wherein the first ring and the second ring are constructed of a first material that is more rigid than a second material of the connecting ring, such that the second material can compress and stretch while being worn by a wearer. (¶105)
-From Claim 20: Lopez discloses wherein the first degree of freedom allows for up to 90 degrees of movement and the second degree of freedom allows for up to 90 degrees of freedom (See Figs. 7A-7C).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez.
-From Claims 4, 11, and 18: Lopez does not disclose wherein the connecting ring is constructed of rubber; in fact, Lopez is silent as to the specific material(s) the connecting ring could be made of. Lopez only states that it is “elastic” and a “biasing member.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the connecting ring out of rubber, since rubber is elastic and used in biasing applications, and because 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
-From Claims 5, 12, and 19: Lopez does not specifically disclose wherein the first ring and the second ring are constructed of plastic; in fact, Lopez is silent as to the specific material(s) the rings could be made of.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the connecting ring out of rubber, since plastic is known in the goggle/spectacle/headset arts, and because 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
-From Claim 7: Lopez does not disclose wherein the joint assembly is configured to allow the extended-reality headset to be donned by persons having at least a 5th percentile to 95ᵗʰ percentile head size.
However, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a range accommodating as many peoples head size as possible, since 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as the cited references include structure similar to that of the presently claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J WILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7324. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm PST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 5712705281. 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.
/DANIEL J WILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 9/28/2026
Prosecution Insights