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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1360" and "1400" have both been used to designate the whole of the structure depicted in Fig. 7A-7B, 15-16A, characters “1360” and “1410” have both been used to designate the whole of the structure depicted in Fig. 8A-8B, . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1400” has been used to designate both the whole structure of Fig. 7A-7B and the whole structure of Fig. 9A and Fig. 11, reference character “1404” has been used to designate inferior medial portions of the posterior and forehead supports of Figs. 9A and 14B-C, reference character “1401” has been used to designate central portions of the posterior and forehead supports of Figs. 9A and 14B-C, reference character “1402” has been used to designate a pair of lateral portions of the posterior and forehead supports of Figs. 9A and 14B-C, and reference character “1403” has been used to designate superior medial portions of the posterior and forehead supports of Figs. 9A and 14B-C. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “1408” points to a structure that is not within the Specifications. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the sentence is incomplete in that the language ends abruptly and without punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 4, 7-19 and 22, a claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art apparatus on the basis of structure. Therefore, the patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or the purpose of that structure, Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. See In re Schrieber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gardiner, 171.F2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948).
Language in an apparatus claim directed to the function, operation, intent of use, and materials upon which these apparatus components work that does not structurally limit the apparatus components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus from an otherwise identical prior art apparatus will not support patentability. See, e.g. In re Rishoi, 107 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660,663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Multiple limitation are directed to intended use, function, and/or operation of the “frame” and/or “shaping member”, but the flexing and bending recited are most prevalent in the claims. Therefore, the limitation has been considered, but has not been given patentable weight.
The limitations do not structurally limit the claim in the disclosed manner, exclusively. Since the applied references teach all of the structural limitations of the claim, the references are presumed to be capable of the intended use, function, and/or operation.
The burden shifts to the Applicant to rebut the presumption that the structure of the applied reference(s) is not capable of the intended use, function, and/or operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 220357333 to Hu, et al. (hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a forehead support (Fig. 5) for a head-mounted display system, comprising: a frame (mounting bracket 321, Fig. 5) attachable to a head-mounted display unit of the head-mounted display system in use; and a resilient forehead pad (“headrest” or “head pillow” 322, Fig. 5) attached to the frame and configured to engage the user's forehead in use (Figs. 1-5), and wherein at least a portion of the frame is able to flex to conform to the shape of the user's forehead in use (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5); and a shaping member (connecting piece 31, Fig. 5) attached to the frame, the shaping member configured to impart a shape to the frame (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Hu discloses the shaping member is substantially rigid (“material of the connecting member 31 may be a plastic material, or other materials”, Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Hu discloses the shaping member is configured to attach to an anterior surface of the frame (Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Hu discloses the shaping member comprises a plate (Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Hu discloses the shaping member comprises a skeleton (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Hu discloses the shape imparted to the frame by the shaping member corresponds to the shape of user's forehead (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Hu discloses the shape imparted to the frame by the shaping member matches the shape of the user's forehead (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Hu discloses the shaping member is formed based on a scan of the user's forehead (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5). This claim is entirely directed to product-by-process limitations and the process of scanning a user’s forehead to form the shaping member does not structurally distinguish the invention over a prior art structure made from a different process.
Regarding claim 10, Hu discloses the frame when shaped by the shaping member is configured to bias the forehead pad into a shape that is more curved than the user's forehead such that in use the forehead pad is conformed to the shape of the user's head (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5). This claim is substantially directed to the operation of the forehead support in use and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over structures used in an analogous manner. The definition of “more curved than the user’s forehead” does not specify a particular structure but a relative geometry of the shaping member compared to a user – where the user is not a fixed variable in the structure.
Regarding claim 11, Hu discloses the frame comprises a central portion structured to attach to the display unit housing (mounting bracket 321 attached to second magnet 50 and first magnet 40 and fixing part 311, Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, Hu discloses the frame comprises a pair of lateral portions having lateral ends able to move with respect to the central portion, the shaping member constructed and arranged to conform the lateral portions to the shape of the user's forehead in use (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5). This claim is substantially directed to the operation of the forehead support in use and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over structures used in an analogous manner.
Regarding claim 13, Hu discloses the lateral ends are each able to be moved by the shaping member at least partially medially and laterally (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5). This claim is substantially directed to the operation of the forehead support in use and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over structures used in an analogous manner.
Regarding claim 14, Hu discloses the lateral ends are each able to be moved by the shaping member at least partially anteriorly and posteriorly (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5). This claim is substantially directed to the operation of the forehead support in use and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over structures used in an analogous manner.
Regarding claim 15, Hu discloses each of the lateral portions comprises a superior lateral portion and an inferior lateral portion and the lateral ends comprise a superior lateral end of each superior lateral portion and an inferior lateral end of each inferior lateral portion, each superior lateral portion being able to be flexed by the shaping member independently of the respective inferior lateral portion (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5). This claim is substantially directed to the operation of the forehead support in use and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over structures used in an analogous manner.
Regarding claim 16, Hu discloses the frame comprises a superior medial portion having a superior end able to move with respect to the central portion of the frame (Figs. 1-5), the shaping member constructed and arranged to conform the superior medial portion to the shape of the user's forehead in use (Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, Hu discloses the superior end is able to be moved by the shaping member at least partially anteriorly and posteriorly (Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 18, Hu discloses the frame comprises an inferior medial portion having an inferior end able to move with respect to the central portion of the frame (Fig. 5), the shaping member constructed and arranged to conform the inferior medial portion to the shape of the user's forehead in use (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Hu discloses the inferior end is able to be moved by the shaping member at least partially anteriorly and posteriorly (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Hu discloses forehead pad comprises a foam layer (“material of the headrest 322 may be highly elastic sponge, foam or foamed cotton”).
Regarding claim 21, Hu discloses forehead pad comprises a textile user-contacting layer (“material of the headrest 322 may be highly elastic sponge, foam or foamed cotton”).
Regarding claim 22, Hu discloses a head-mounted display system (Abstract, Figs. 1-5), comprising: a head-mounted display unit comprising a display unit housing comprising a display (Abstract, Figs. 1-5); and a positioning and stabilising structure constructed and arranged to hold the head-mounted display unit in an operable position on the user's head in use (Figs. 1-5); wherein the positioning and stabilising structure comprises a forehead support (Fig. 5), the forehead support comprising a frame (mounting bracket 321, Fig. 5) attached to the head-mounted display unit in use and a resilient forehead pad (“headrest” or “head pillow” 322, Fig. 5) attached to the frame and configured to engage the user's forehead in use, and wherein at least a portion of the frame is able to flex to conform to the shape of the user's forehead in use (“attached to the forehead of the user, improving the contact area of the head-wearing device 100 with the forehead of the user, so as to improve the weight of the forehead of the user supporting the head-wearing device 100”, Fig. 5); wherein the forehead support comprises a shaping member (connecting piece 31, Fig. 5) attached to the frame, the shaping member configured to impart a shape to the frame (Figs. 1-5).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170337737 to Edwards, et al. (hereinafter Edwards).
Regarding claim 1, Edwards discloses a forehead support for a head-mounted display system (Fig. 1C), comprising: a frame (Velcro 13, Fig. 1C) attachable to a head-mounted display unit of the head-mounted display system in use (Fig. 1C); and a resilient forehead pad (foam 14, Fig. 1C)attached to the frame and configured to engage the user's forehead in use, and wherein at least a portion of the frame is able to flex to conform to the shape of the user's forehead in use F(g. 1C); and a shaping member (rear portion of lens 11, Fig. 1C) attached to the frame, the shaping member configured to impart a shape to the frame (Fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 2, Edwards discloses the shaping member is more rigid than the frame (thin Velcro 13 compared to lens structure 11, Fig. 1C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights