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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, IV et al. (US 2011/0283431) in view of Douglas (US 2006/0010572). The device of Miller IV, et al.
With respect to claim1 , A protective helmet (5a; Figure 29) for practicing sports activities or using motorized vehicles (para 0061), the protective helmet comprising a cap (Figure 29) provided with a front opening at an eye region of a user (Figure 28, and closed by a visor assembly (20a;Figure 29), characterized in that said
wherein the visor assembly (3) comprises: at least one at least partially transparent structural lens (Figure 4, 20);
a guest-host type liquid crystal (LC) film (10) adapted to modify its own transparency level (para 0047), arranged behind the at least partially transparent structural lens (Figure 4);
at least one electrical source (159,230) for powering the LC film;
The device of Miller IV et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a frame.
The device of Douglass teaches a helmet and a visor assembly having a frame (26) adapted to support the at least partially transparent structural lens (Figure 2) and anchor (26, 28) the at least partially transparent structural lens to the cap (para 0020), and wherein said frame at least partially follows a perimeter (the frame that connects the lens 12 to the helmet with the engaging members follows a perimeter of the lens on the side of the helmet) of said at least partially transparent structural lens.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the visor assembly taught by Douglas including a frame to provide an improved face protecting shield (para 0007).
With respect to claim 2, wherein said LC film has a transparency to visible light of at least 60% in the lightest state thereof and at most 40% in the darkest state thereof (para 0069).
With respect to claim 3, The protective helmet of claim 1, wherein said electrical source (230) for powering the LC film (Figure 19; para 0012) is connected to an electronic board (159) which that controls the LC film and which produces a signal (para 0011 and 0066, and wherein an intensity of which the signal increases (applying a voltage to darken the LC) with increasing ambient light (para 0108).
With respect to claim 5, The protective helmet according of claim 3 wherein said electronic board (159,80 Figure 1) is accommodated in a frame compartment arranged outside a perimeter defined by the front opening of the cap so as not to obstruct the user's a field of vision of the user (Figures 2, 8, 29 show the circuits and components 80 are located outside the opening area).
With respect to claim 7, the protective helmet of claim 1, wherein the visor assembly (20) further comprises at least one depolarizing layer arranged between the at least partially transparent structural lens and the LC film.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller IV, et al and Douglas, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2020/0126499). The modified device of Miller substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a curve.
The device of Huang teaches,
With respect to claim 4, The protective helmet of claim 3, wherein the electronic board (34) is provided with a response curve (Curve shown in figure 5), between an input signal (brightness) and an output signal (gray scale of the pixel), which is modifiable according to needs of the user (para 0195).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the curve of Huang for an improved picture and user experience (para 0196).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller IV, et al and Douglas, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ishak (US 2005/0007548).
The modified device of Miller IV et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a multilayer mirroring treatment.
The device of Ishak teaches,
With respect to claim 6, The protective helmet of claim 1,wherein said at least partially transparent structural lens (Figure 1) is provided with a multilayer mirroring treatment (14, para 0054).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the multilayer mirror of Ishak to the helmet of Miller as it would improve the light transmission profile of the current device (para 00540.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller IV, et al and Douglas, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shellhause (US 2019/0331316).
The modified device of Miller IV et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking silent with respect to a thermoformed sheet of polymer material.
The device of Shellhause teaches,
With respect to claim 8, the protective helmet of claim 1 wherein the at least partially transparent structural lens (para 0054) is a thermoformed sheet of polymer material (para 0054). It is noted that the language is a thermoformed sheet is a product by process limitation, if the prior art is capable of being formed by the claimed process then it meets the claim. In the prior art of Shellhause, the sheet is a polymer and is molded by thermoforming.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the polymer sheet formed by thermoforming as taught by Shellhause since the sheet is a polymer and would be capable of being molded.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller IV et al. and Douglass, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henderson (US 2014/0223641).
With respect to claim 9, The modified device of Miller IV et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention including a cap comprising a
a photovoltaic plate (29, 99a) positioned at least partially outside the rigid outer shell the plate is positioned at least partially outside the rigid outer shell (the plate is located outside the hard shell that is the top portion 5a) said photovoltaic plate being connected directly to the electrical source for powering the LC film or by interposition of a battery (The solver cell cover 99a is connected to the controller 88a whiner as can be seen in Figure 19, the controller is connected to a power source and the optical element, therefore the solar cell cover 99a is connect to the power source 230 and the LC film 10). The modified device of Miller IV et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention including a rigid outer shell, but is lacking a collapsible inner shell.
The device of Henderson teaches
a rigid outer shell and a collapsible inner shell (para 0066);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the collapsible shell taught by Henderson in order to provide protection against impact for a user (para 0009).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller IV et al. and Douglass, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Unger (US 2021/0058695).
The modified device of Miller IV et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a collapsible inner shell and an audio system.
The modified device of Miller IV et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention including a rigid outer shell, but is lacking a collapsible inner shell.
The device of Henderson teaches
a rigid outer shell and a collapsible inner shell (para 0066);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the collapsible shell taught by Henderson in order to provide protection against impact for a user (para 0009).
The device of Unger teaches,
With protective helmet of claim 10, wherein said cap comprises:
a rigid outer shell and a bone conduction audio system (para 0015). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively to have added the bone conduction audio system taught by Unger to provide a devices transmitting sound to a user to prevent isolation of the suer in environments where hearing protection is desired (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732