DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated October 29, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, recites “an operator”. It is presumed to recite “the operator”.
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 (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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lobner (US 2021/0121330 A1) in view of Enyedy (US 2019/0308267 A1) and PC Magazine (NPL, PC Magazine, Digital Signature, August 3, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Lobner discloses a welding helmet (see at least Figures 1, 3 and 6, items 13A, 326 and 2000 | [0015]), comprising:
control circuitry (see at least Figure 3, item 304 | [0098-0099] note the functionality of the mobile computing device (302), which includes at least one processor (304), can be integrated into the PPE (13A, 326, 2000) | [0160]) configured to:
(strongly suggested) determine an identity of an operator wearing the welding helmet, wherein the identity of an operator wearing the welding helmet comprises an operator identity (see at least [0124] note the welding helmet may be locked without an authentication credential and challenge process | [0125] note the authentication (challenge) process is implemented via a public key (PKI) encryption process that one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes uses two sets of public and private keys for authentication, such as the operator’s public and private key and the welding helmet’s public and private key),
(strongly suggested) determine a welding helmet identity of the welding helmet (see at least [0125] note this would correspond to the welding helmet’s public and private key);
enable or disable one or more accessible helmet functions of a plurality of potential helmet functions based on the (strongly suggested) welding helmet identity and the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet (see at least [0125] note in response to failure of the PKI authentication challenge and/or proximity, operation of at least one functionality is prevented | [0126] note that when the PPE is authorized for use, which is done via at least the PKI authentication challenge as taught in paragraphs [0124-0125], at least one functionality is enabled).
However, Lobner does not specifically disclose determine an identity of an operator wearing the welding helmet, wherein the identity of an operator wearing the welding helmet comprises an operator identity; determine a welding helmet identity of the welding helmet; and identifying one or more accessible helmet functions of a plurality of potential helmet functions based on the welding helmet identity and the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet; enable the one or more accessible helmet functions; and disable a remainder of the plurality of potential helmet functions.
It is known to restrict functionality of a device. For example, Enyedy teaches a welding device that determines an identity of an operator, wherein the identity of an operator using the welding device comprises an operator identity; identifies one or more accessible functions of a plurality of potential functions based on the identity of the operator; enables the one or more accessible functions; and disables a remainder of the plurality of potential functions (see at least [0022-0023] | [0038] note security levels are associated with user IDs, biometric inputs, or a cryptographic certificate, such that access to functionality is enabled/disabled in accordance with the user’s security level | [0041-0042]).
With respect to the other limitations, PC Magazine, see pages 1, 6 and 7, illustrates determining a first identity; and based on the first identity and the second identity, how authentication is performed. For example, since Lobner’s system uses PKI encryption (see [0125]), Lobner’s operator would sign challenge data with their private key and the welding helmet’s public key, and the welding helmet would authenticate that challenge data using the operator’s public key and its private key. For at least this reason, Lobner’s system, which utilizes PKI encryption, would determine a welding helmet identity of the welding helmet; and based on the welding helmet identity and the identity of the operator, as taught by PC Magazine.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Enyedy and PC Magazine into Lobner. With respect to Enyedy, this improves Lobner’s anti-theft techniques by reducing perceived value of the welding helmet to thieves because it is inoperable without an access code, and discourages operator misuse by restricting access to higher level functions (see [0025] of Enyedy | [0125] of Lobner). With respect to PC Magazine, this improves Lobner in view of Enyedy’s security by utilizing PKI authentication.
Regarding claim 3, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach a sensor configured to automatically detect a characteristic of the operator, the control circuitry being configured to determine the identity of the operator based on the characteristic detected by the sensor (see at least [0072] of Lobner, note biometrics of the user can be obtained | [0124] of Lobner | [0038] of Enyedy, note biometrics are acquired via sensors).
Regarding claim 4, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach a user interface configured to receive credentials of the operator, the control circuitry configured to determine the identity of the operator based on the credentials received by the user interface (see at least [0068] of Lobner, note authentication credentials correspond to a username and password | [0124] of Lobner | [0038] of Enyedy, note alphanumeric or PIN codes are acquired via a user interface).
Regarding claim 5, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine further teach the welding helmet further comprising a user interface configured to output a notification to the operator wearing the welding helmet, the notification identifying the one or more accessible helmet functions and asking whether the operator would like to change which helmet functions are currently accessible or inaccessible (see at least [0103-0105] of Lobner | [0130] of Lobner | [0042] of Enyedy, note the supervisor can view and modify security levels and access codes by local or remote user interfaces).
Regarding claim 6, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach wherein the plurality of potential helmet functions comprise two or more of, and the remainder of the plurality of the potential helmet functions comprises one or more of, a helmet status detection function (see at least [0125] of Lobner, note light sensors are enabled/disabled based on the passcode), an automatic light configuration function (see at least [0125] of Lobner, note auto-darkening filter is enabled/disabled based on the passcode), an automatic lens configuration function, a torch travel speed detection function, a temperature detection function, a personal protective equipment (PPE) detection function, an arc on time tracking function, an operator identification function, a lens maintenance detection function, a welding parameter viewing function, a work instruction viewing function, a communication function, or a guidance or feedback function. With respect to Enyedy, Enyedy clearly discloses that the highest level of security is associated with configuration, supervisory, maintenance and/or diagnostic functions (see at least [0022] of Enyedy). For at least this reason, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that Lobner in view of Enyedy’s remainder of the plurality of the potential helmet functions can comprise at least an automatic lens configuration function because Lobner can clearly configure secure triggering or control of auto-shade (see at least [0145] of Lobner).
Regarding claim 7, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach a helmet shell configured to be worn on a head of an operator (see at least Figure 6, item 2010 of Lobner | [0160] of Lobner, note headtop (2010)).
Regarding claim 8, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to identify the one or more accessible helmet functions based on a file or data structure stored in memory circuitry of the welding helmet (see at least [0124] of Lobner | [0139] of Lobner | [0038] of Enyedy, note the device contains a data structure that maintains user ID and security level associations).
Regarding claim 9, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach communication circuitry configured to communicate with an external device, the control circuitry configured to update the file or data structure based on one or more signals received from the external device via the communication circuitry, the update changing which of the plurality of potential helmet functions comprise the one or more accessible helmet functions (see at least [0099-0100] of Lobner, note instructions executed by processor (304) may cause mobile computing device (302) to store and/or modify information, within storage devices (308) during program execution | [0124] of Lobner, note the management engine (324) | [0139] of Lobner | [0141] of Lobner | [0041] of Enyedy, note wireless | [0042] of Enyedy, note security levels and access codes can be modified by the local or remote user interface).
Regarding claim 11, Lobner discloses a method, comprising:
(strongly suggested) determining, via control circuitry of a welding helmet, an identity of an operator wearing the welding helmet, wherein the identity of the operator wearing the welding helmet comprises an operator identity (see at least [0124] note the welding helmet may be locked without an authentication credential and challenge process | [0125] note the authentication (challenge) process is implemented via a public key (PKI) encryption process that one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes uses two sets of public and private keys for authentication, such as the operator’s public and private key and the welding helmet’s public and private key);
(strongly suggested) determining, via the control circuity of the welding helmet, a welding helmet identity of the welding helmet (see at least [0125] note this would correspond to the welding helmet’s public and private key);
enable or disable, via the control circuitry, one or more accessible helmet functions of a plurality of potential helmet functions of the welding helmet based on the (strongly suggested) welding helmet identity and the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet (see at least [0125] note in response to failure of the PKI authentication challenge and/or proximity, operation of at least one functionality is prevented | [0126] note that when the PPE is authorized for use, which is done via at least the PKI authentication challenge as taught in paragraphs [0124-0125], at least one functionality is enabled).
However, Lobner does not specifically disclose determining an identity of an operator wearing the welding helmet, wherein the identity of an operator wearing the welding helmet comprises an operator identity; determining a welding helmet identity of the welding helmet; and identifying one or more accessible helmet functions of a plurality of potential helmet functions of the welding helmet based on the welding helmet identity and the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet; enabling the one or more accessible helmet functions of the welding helmet; and disable a remainder of the plurality of potential helmet functions of the welding helmet.
It is known to restrict functionality of a device. For example, Enyedy teaches a welding device that determines an identity of an operator, wherein the identity of an operator using the welding device comprises an operator identity; identifies one or more accessible functions of a plurality of potential functions of the welding device based on the identity of the operator; enables the one or more accessible functions; and disables a remainder of the plurality of potential functions (see at least [0022-0023] | [0038] note security levels are associated with user IDs, biometric inputs, or a cryptographic certificate, such that access to functionality is enabled/disabled in accordance with the user’s security level | [0041-0042]).
With respect to the other limitations, PC Magazine, see pages 1, 6 and 7, illustrates determining a first identity; and based on the first identity and the second identity, how authentication is performed. For example, since Lobner’s system uses PKI encryption (see [0125]), Lobner’s operator would sign challenge data with their private key and the welding helmet’s public key, and the welding helmet would authenticate that challenge data using the operator’s public key and its private key. For at least this reason, Lobner’s system, which utilizes PKI encryption, would determine a welding helmet identity of the welding helmet; and based on the welding helmet identity and the identity of the operator, as taught by PC Magazine.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Enyedy and PC Magazine into Lobner. With respect to Enyedy, this improves Lobner’s anti-theft techniques by reducing perceived value of the welding helmet to thieves because it is inoperable without an access code, and discourages operator misuse by restricting access to higher level functions (see [0025] of Enyedy | [0125] of Lobner). With respect to PC Magazine, this improves Lobner in view of Enyedy’s security by utilizing PKI authentication.
Regarding claim 13, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach detecting a characteristic of the operator using a sensor of the welding helmet; and determining, via the control circuitry, the identity of the operator based on the characteristic of the operator detected by the sensor (see at least [0072] of Lobner, note biometrics of the user can be obtained | [0124] of Lobner | [0038] of Enyedy, note biometrics are acquired via sensors).
Regarding claim 14, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach receiving credentials of the operator via a user interface of the welding helmet; and determining, via the control circuitry, the identity of the operator based on the credentials received by the user interface (see at least [0068] of Lobner, note authentication credentials correspond to a username and password | [0124] of Lobner | [0038] of Enyedy, note alphanumeric or PIN codes are acquired via a user interface).
Regarding claim 15, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach outputting, via a user interface of the welding helmet, a notification to the operator wearing the welding helmet, the notification identifying the one or more accessible helmet functions and asking whether the operator would like to change which helmet functions are currently accessible or inaccessible (see at least [0103-0105] of Lobner | [0130] of Lobner | [0042] of Enyedy, note the supervisor can view and modify security levels and access codes by local or remote user interfaces).
Regarding claim 16, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach wherein the plurality of potential helmet functions comprise two or more of, and the remainder of the plurality of the potential helmet functions comprises one or more of, a helmet status detection function (see at least [0125] of Lobner, note light sensors are enabled/disabled based on the passcode), an automatic light configuration function (see at least [0125] of Lobner, note auto-darkening filter is enabled/disabled based on the passcode), an automatic lens configuration function, a torch travel speed detection function, a temperature detection function, a personal protective equipment (PPE) detection function, an arc on time tracking function, an operator identification function, a lens maintenance detection function, a welding parameter viewing function, a work instruction viewing function, a communication function, or a guidance or feedback function. With respect to Enyedy, Enyedy clearly discloses that the highest level of security is associated with configuration, supervisory, maintenance and/or diagnostic functions (see at least [0022] of Enyedy). For at least this reason, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that Lobner in view of Enyedy’s remainder of the plurality of the potential helmet functions can comprise at least an automatic lens configuration function because Lobner can clearly configure secure triggering or control of auto-shade (see at least [0145] of Lobner).
Regarding claim 17, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach wherein the one or more accessible helmet functions are identified based on one or more signals received from an external device (see at least [0042] of Enyedy).
Regarding claim 18, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach wherein the one or more accessible helmet functions are identified based on a file or data structure stored in memory circuitry of the welding helmet (see at least [0124] of Lobner | [0139] of Lobner | [0038] of Enyedy, note the device contains a data structure that maintains user ID and security level associations).
Regarding claim 19, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach updating the file or data structure based on one or more signals received from an external device via communication circuitry of the welding helmet, wherein the updating changes which of the plurality of potential helmet functions comprise the one or more accessible helmet functions (see at least [0099-0100] of Lobner, note instructions executed by processor (304) may cause mobile computing device (302) to store and/or modify information, within storage devices (308) during program execution | [0124] of Lobner, note the management engine (324) | [0139] of Lobner | [0141] of Lobner | [0041] of Enyedy, note wireless | [0042] of Enyedy, note security levels and access codes can be modified by the local or remote user interface).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lobner (US 2021/0121330 A1) in view of Enyedy (US 2019/0308267 A1) and PC Magazine (NPL, PC Magazine, Digital Signature, August 3, 2020) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Becker (US 2021/0158716 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine, as addressed above, teach communication circuitry (see at least [0100] of Lobner | [0041] of Enyedy).
However, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine do not specifically teach send the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet to an external device, and receive a response signal from the external device in response to sending the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet, the control circuitry configured to identify the one or more accessible helmet functions based on the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet and the response signal received from the external device.
It is known to authenticate users in different places. For example, Becker teaches a system that sends an identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet to an external device (see at least [0069] note user credentials are sent to and verified by a remote server), and receives a response signal from the external device in response to sending the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet (see at least [0069] note the server transmits whether or not the user is verified or authorized), the control circuitry configured to identify the one or more accessible helmet functions based on the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet and the response signal received from the external device (see at least [0151-0154] note selected functions are identified based on whether or not the user is authorized as verified by the server, and they are stored in the memory circuitry 226).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Becker into Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine. This simply provides a known alternative user verification location that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Lobner in view of Enyedy and PC Magazine’s user verification location while providing predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Lobner in view of Enyedy, PC Magazine and Becker, as addressed above, teach sending the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet to an external device, via communication circuitry of the welding helmet; and receiving, by the communication circuitry of the welding helmet, a response signal from the external device in response to sending the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet, wherein the one or more accessible helmet functions are identified based on the identity of the operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet and the response signal received from the external device (see at least [0100] of Lobner | [0041] of Enyedy | [0069] note user credentials are sent to and verified by a remote server | [0151-0154] note selected functions are identified based on whether or not the user is authorized as verified by the server, and they are stored in the memory circuitry 226).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 10, Lobner, Enyedy, PC Magazine and Becker do not disclose and/or fairly suggest wherein the communication circuitry is configured to send a job code or financial information to the external device, and the one or more signals received from the external device are received in response to sending the job code or the financial information.
Regarding claim 20, Lobner, Enyedy, PC Magazine and Becker do not disclose and/or fairly suggest wherein the communication circuitry is configured to send a job code or financial information to the external device, and the one or more signals received from the external device are received in response to sending the job code or the financial information
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “LOBNER
The Office Action acknowledges ‘Lobner does not…disclose determining an identity of an operator; [and/or] identifying one or more accessible helmet functions of a plurality of potential helmet functions based on the identity of the operator....’ Office Action at 3.
Lobner also does not appear to disclose or suggest identifying one or more accessible helmet functions of a plurality of potential helmet functions based on a welding helmet identity.
Though Lobner does discuss using a user ID and an association between the user ID and a personal protective equipment (PPE) ID to determine which particular piece of PPE of multiple different PPE in the area is assigned to a user (see, e.g., Lobner at [0128]), Lobner does not appear to disclose or suggest using the PPE ID to identify one or more accessible helmet functions.
Thus, Lobner does not disclose or suggest a welding helmet, comprising control circuitry configured to identify one or more accessible helmet functions of a plurality of potential helmet functions based on a welding helmet identity and an identity of an operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet, as set forth in claims 1-10.
ENYEDY
Enyedy also does not disclose or suggest a welding helmet, comprising control circuitry configured to identify one or more accessible helmet functions of a plurality of potential helmet functions based on a welding helmet identity and an identity of an operator determined to be wearing the welding helmet, as set forth in claims 1-10.
While the Office Action appears to cite to paragraph [0038] of Enyedy to allege otherwise, at best paragraph [0038] of Enyedy discusses determining an operatory identity, and/or determining one or more accessible functions based on the operator identity. As best as Applicant can discern, Enyedy does not appear to disclose or suggest (neither in [0038] or elsewhere) determining the one or more accessible helmet functions based on a welding helmet identity.”
In response, Lobner uses public key encryption as an authentication process to authenticate the welding operator (see [0124-0125]). In addition, Enyedy also teaches the use of cryptographic certificates to authenticate an operator (see [0038]). PC Magazine illustrates how the public key encryption (PKI) process operates. Any challenge data to operate the welding mask is encrypted by the operator’s private key and the welding mask’s public key. The welding mask determines an identity of an operator wearing the welding helmet, wherein the identity of the operator wearing the welding helmet comprises an operator identity, or the operator’s public key, and determines the welding helmet’s identity, or its private key, and decrypts the challenge data with its private key and the operator’s public key. This allows the welding helmet to verify that the operator wearing the welding helmet is indeed the correct welding operator that issued the challenge. If authenticated the welding helmet is enabled, otherwise it is disabled. Enyedy also discloses using the PPE ID to identify one or more accessible helmet functions via its cryptographic certificate (see [0038]). For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689