DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is responsive to amendments filed 02/26/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 18-20, and 26 have been amended and claims 2, 5, 8, 12, 16, 17, and 21-24 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 18-20, and 25-29 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended independent claim 1 to recite the following new limitations: “a system for an athletic session comprising: a football for the athletic session and comprising a transmitter and a receiver; and a head apparatus configured to communicate with the football during the athletic session, the head apparatus comprising…a control system configured to illuminate the at least one light emitting diode for exterior visibility during the athletic session, wherein the control system of the head apparatus is configured to receive a signal from the football to illuminate the at least one light emitting diode.” Independent claim 11 was amended to recite a method commensurate with the system of claim 1.
Independent claim 20 was amended to include the new limitation “at least one graphene light source coupled to a power source” and remove recitation of “wherein the control system is configured to communicate over the Internet to download images for illumination on the at least one light source”.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that the combined cited art is silent regarding the amended limitations. The examiner agrees, and the rejection of claims 1. 3. 4. 6. 7. 9-11, 13-15, 18, and 19 have been withdrawn.
With respect to claim 20, Applicant argues that the combined cited art is silent regarding a graphene light source. The examiner agrees, and the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection has been made in view of FAN, US 2017/0256679.
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) 20 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORGEY, US 2015/0195890 in view of FAN, US 2017/0256679.
Re claim 20:
FORGEY teaches a head apparatus comprising:
a structure having an opening [0083];
memory comprising instructions [0039] [0042];
at least one light source coupled to a power source, the at least one light source may be a light emitting electrochemical cell (LEC) comprising graphene [0052] [0083]; and
a control system coupled to the memory and configured to illuminate the at least one light source in accordance with the instructions [0040] [0042].
While FORGEY does not explicitly state that the helmet is a “football” helmet, FORGEY does specify that the helmet may comprise any conventional helmet for protecting a head of a person such as a sports or motorcycle helmet in paragraph [0083]. Football helmets fall in the category of sports helmets.
Further, while FORGEY teaches the light source may be a LEC comprising graphene, FORGEY does not explicitly state that the light source is specifically a “graphene light source”.
FAN teaches a graphene display device comprising a plurality of graphene light emitting structures constituting dynamic sub-pixels of the graphene display unit [0030]-[0032] [Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of FAN in the apparatus of FORGEY such that the at least one light source is a graphene light source. Incorporating a graphene light source would provide the apparatus with a vivid display with high color gamut coverage and low power consumption (FAN [0007] [0020]).
Re claim 28:
FORGEY, in view of FAN, teaches the helmet of claim 20, wherein the control system is configured to communicate with a communication device to download an application to the memory [0039].
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORGEY, US 2015/0195890 in view of FAN, US 2017/0256679, as applied in claim 20, and further in view of RIBACK et al, US 2005/0270280.
Re claims 25-27:
FORGEY, in view of FAN, teaches the helmet of claim 20, wherein the memory comprises an application [0039].
FORGEY does not teach the memory comprises an application associated with a game video, the game video associated with a player or that the control system is configured to return the at least one light source to an original state in response to illuminating the at least one light source in accordance with the game video.
RIBACK teaches a helmet (helmet 410 [0050] [Figure 4]); At least one light source coupled to the structure (display 102 [0054] [Figure 4]); Memory comprising an application associated with a game video (memory 202 [0041] [Figure 2]); and a control system configured to illuminate the at least one light source for exterior visibility in accordance with the game video, wherein the control system is configured to return the at least one light source to an original state in response to illuminating the at least one light source in accordance with the game video (i.e., controller 208 controls display of video on display 102 as a function of the video data stored in the programmed memory device [0042]. Activation of the activation means 215 may cause a video sequence to be displayed only once [0044]. The display may revert back to an original state after display of the video sequence [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of RIBACK in the helmet of FORGEY, in view of FAN, such that the memory comprises an application associated with a game video, the video associated with a player. Such incorporation provides sports fans with the ability to display game video associated with a particular player to celebrate particular game moment (RIBACK [0049]). Further incorporating return of the light source to an original state in response to illuminating the at least one light source in accordance with the game video would be for the purpose of facilitating selective display of the game video.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORGEY, US 2015/0195890 in view of FAN, US 2017/0256679, as applied in claim 20, and further in view of O’DELL, US 2015/0173444 and MUSEC et al, US 2015/0271367.
Re claim 29:
FORGEY, in view of FAN, teaches the helmet of claim 20, but does not teach a visor coupled to a camera, wherein the camera captures and stores video in the memory.
O’DELL teaches sporting helmet visors including an attached camera, the camera configured to capture video [0009]-[0011].
O’DELL does not specify that video is stored in a memory.
MUSEC teaches a football helmet comprising a memory and a faceguard (80) coupled to a camera (video optics housing 92), wherein the camera captures and stores video in the memory [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of O’DELL in the helmet of FORGEY, in view of FAN, such that the helmet includes a visor coupled to a camera configured to capture video. Such incorporation would be for the purpose of providing sports fans with a first-person view of a game from the perspective of the player wearing the helmet.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of MUSEC in the helmet of FORGEY, in view of FAN and O’DELL, such that the video is stored in a memory. Storing video captured from a camera in memory is necessary for later viewing of the video.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, and 19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest, either singularly or in combination thereof, a system for athletic session comprising:
A football for the athletic session and comprising a transmitter and a receiver; and
A head apparatus configured to communicate with the football during the athletic session, the head apparatus comprising:
A structure having an opening, the structure comprising an interior protection and an outside layer;
At least one light emitting diode coupled to a power source; and
A control system configured to illuminate the at least one light emitting diode for exterior visibility during the athletic session, wherein the control system of the head apparatus is configured to receive a signal from the football to illuminate the at least one light emitting diode.
The method of independent claim 11 is allowed for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-15, 18, and 19 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and are therefore allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876