DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
3. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 02/27/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 12 and 15 are amended; claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13, 14 and 16-20 have been canceled; and new claim—claims 21 and 22—have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 21 and 22 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
● Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(a) or 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each of claims 1 and 12 recites, “the optical piece has one end portion that is configured to mount to a helmet shell of a helmet of a player and another opposite end portion that defines a free end extended out from the helmet shell, the free end having a cross-sectional area less than the one end portion” (emphasis added).
However, further evaluation of the original disclosure, which includes the original drawings, has revealed that the disclosure does not have any written description regarding the claimed cross-sectional area above, which asserts that the free end portion of the optical piece has a cross-sectional area that is less than that of the portion of the optical piece mounted to the helmet shell. In fact, the specification appears to be silent regarding any attributes related to dimension, much less such specific attribute that signifies the difference in the cross-sectional area between the two parts of the optical piece.
Note also that none of the original figures necessarily suggests the specific limitation above since the figures do not include any scaling features or symbols that define dimensional attributes related to the different parts of the helmet. The Office has also presented FIG A below, which is reproduced from part of original FIG 4 that relates to the “adjustable optical piece” (note that additional references are added for clarification),
Accordingly, when comparing label “A2”, which corresponds to the free end portion of the “adjustable optical piece” (note that the current claims appear to consider the “adjustable optical piece” as the “optical piece”), with label “A1” that corresponds to the portion of the “adjustable optical piece” configured to be mounted to the helmet shell, the figure does not necessarily show whether the cross-sectional area of “A2” is less than that of “A1”. It is worth noting that a cross-sectional area is a two-dimensional area that one obtains when slicing a three-dimensional object. However, neither the original drawings nor the original specification contemplates any cross-section of any component, much less a measurement in terms of a cross-sectional area.
Accordingly, neither the original drawings nor the original specification provides support regarding the newly added claimed limitation.
► Applicant’s current arguments directed to section §112(a) have been fully considered (i.e., the arguments filed on 02/27/2026).
Accordingly, while attempting to describe the features depicted per FIG 4 of the drawings, Applicant has attempted to substantiate the alleged support that the disclosure is supposedly providing regarding the currently claimed features of the optical piece (e.g., see pages 5-7 of the argument).
However, Applicant’s response does not address the specific issue pointed out under section §112(a). In particular, given the fact that original FIG 4 does not even contemplate—much less positively depict—any cross-section related to any part of the helmet apparatus, the argument fails to address how a cross-sectional area, which is a two-dimensional area that one obtains by slicing a three-dimensional object, is depicted per any of the figures. Instead, while referring to FIG 4, Applicant appears to rely on subjective assumptions to substantiate the alleged support regarding the new claimed subject matter. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note also that none of the sections that Applicant cited from the MPEP, including MPEP 2163, supports Applicant’s position. This is because the MPEP requires the original disclosure, which includes originally presented drawings, to sufficiently support a claimed feature(s). In contrast, since none of Applicant’s original figures depicts any cross-section related to any of the components, PHOSITA would not know whether two or more portions of the claimed optical piece have the same or different cross-sectional areas.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that the current claims involve new subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 15, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Luster 2007/0143382 in view of Sugihara 2011/0234476.
Regarding claim 1, Luster teaches the following claimed limitations: a system comprising: a coach portable computing device configured to execute a coaching computer module to receive, from a user at the coach portable computing device, a first play call ([0003]; [0026]: e.g., a system that comprises an electronic clipboard, which allows a user—such as a coach—to send audio and/or visual content to each of one or more players. Thus, the electronic clipboard above corresponds to the coach portable computing device, which is already configured to execute a coaching computer module to receive, from a user at the coach portable computing device, a first play call); and a player helmet, wherein the coach portable computing device is configured to, as a result of receiving at least the first play call, execute the coaching computer module to transmit the first play call from the coach portable computing device to the helmet, and wherein the helmet is configured to receive the first play call ([0029]; [0034]: e.g., the system further comprises a helmet, which each of the one or more of players is wearing; and accordingly, the electronic clipboard above, which is the coach portable computing device, transmits pertinent audio and/or visual content to one or more wearable devices that each of the one or more players is wearing, including audio content that would be presented to the player via a helmet speaker, etc. The above indicates that the coach portable computing device is already configured to execute, as a result of receiving at least the first play call, the coaching computer module to transmit the first play call from the coach portable computing device to the helmet, and wherein the helmet is configured to receive the first play call).
Luster does not teach, as part of the helmet, a helmet apparatus that comprises an optical piece that includes an optical display for displaying the first play call; wherein the optical piece has one end portion that is configured to mount to a helmet shell of a helmet of a player and another opposite end portion that defines a free end extended out from the helmet shell, the free end having a cross-sectional area less than the one end portion, the optical display defined at least at the free end.
However, Sugihara teaches a head-mounted display device that includes an optical unit (FIG 1, label “3”); and an attachment unit (FIG 1, label “4”), which is part of a body unit (FIG 1, label “2”) attaches the optical unit to the frame of the head-mounted display; wherein the attachment unit is thicker than the portion of the optical unit ([0118]; [0119]); and accordingly, the head-mounted display above further incorporates electronic components, which allows it to display—via the optical unit—information to the user, including information that is wirelessly transmitted to the user ([0206]); and furthermore, the head-mounted display above also encompasses a helmet that the user wears; and wherein, besides the implementation groove type attachment techniques, additional attachments mechanisms are also contemplates ([0112]).
Note that the portion that includes the attachment unit (FIG 1, label “4”), or the combination of the attachment unit and the body unit (FIG 1, labels “4” and “2”), is considered to be the portion that is configured to be mounted to the shell of the helmet. In this regard, given the fact that “[t]he attachment portion 4 is relatively thick as compared with the tip portion of the eyepiece optical unit 3” ([0119]), the free end, which has the optical disapply, indeed has a cross-sectional area that is less than that of the end that is configured to be mounted to the shell of the helmet.
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Luster in view of Sugihara; for example, by incorporating at least one auxiliary structure that comprises an optical unit, which is configured to display image/video content that the coach is transmitting to the player; and wherein the structure above is mounted—either removably or permanently—to the left frame or the right frame of the helmet using one or more attachment techniques—such as, a clamp that secures one end of the structure inside the left frame or the right frame; and accordingly, each of the one or more players would have additional flexibility to easily view—with no/minimum disruption—the image/video content that the coach is transmitting, etc.
Regarding claim 12, Luster teaches the following claimed limitations: a helmet that comprises a power source; wherein the helmet is configured to receive at least a first play call from a coach portable computing device ([0026];[0029]; [0034]: e.g., a system that incorporates a helmet, which each of one or more players wears during play; and the system also comprises an electronic clipboard—i.e., a coach portable computing device; and thereby the helmet receives a first play call—such as an audio content—from the coach portable computing device. Accordingly, the helmet also comprises a power source to power one or more units—such as the speaker—of the helmet).
Luster does not teach, a helmet apparatus that comprises an optical piece that includes an display and a power source to power the optical piece; wherein the optical piece has one end portion that is configured to mount to a helmet shell of a helmet of a player and another opposite end portion that defines a free end extended out from the helmet shell, the free end having a cross-sectional area less than the one end portion, the optical display defined at least at the free end.
However, Sugihara teaches a head-mounted display device that includes an optical unit (FIG 1, label “3”); and an attachment unit (FIG 1, label “4”), which is part of a body unit (FIG 1, label “2”) attaches the optical unit to the frame of the head-mounted display; wherein the body unit also includes, at least implicitly, a power source to power the optical unit ([0069]; [0077]); and wherein the attachment unit is thicker than the portion of the optical unit ([0118]; [0119]); and accordingly, the head-mounted display device above further incorporates electronic components, which allows the device to display—via the optical unit—information to the user, including information that is wirelessly transmitted to the user ([0206]); and furthermore, the head-mounted display above also encompasses a helmet that the user wears; and wherein, besides the implementation groove type attachment techniques, additional attachments mechanisms are also contemplates ([0112]).
Note that the portion that includes the attachment unit (FIG 1, label “4”), or the combination of the attachment unit and the body unit (FIG 1, labels “4” and “2”), is considered to be the portion that is configured to be mounted to the shell of the helmet. In this regard, given the fact that “[t]he attachment portion 4 is relatively thick as compared with the tip portion of the eyepiece optical unit 3” ([0119]), the free end, which has the optical disapply, indeed has a cross-sectional area that is less than that of the end that is configured to be mounted to the shell of the helmet.
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Luster in view of Sugihara; for example, by incorporating at least one auxiliary structure that comprises an optical unit, including a backup power source to power the optical unit (e.g., in case the power source of the helmet fails, etc.); wherein the optical unit is configured to display image/video content that the coach is transmitting to the player; and the structure above is mounted—either removably or permanently—to the left frame or the right frame of the helmet using one or more attachment techniques—such as, a clamp that secures one end of the structure inside the left frame or the right frame; so that, each of the one or more players would have additional flexibility to easily view—with no/minimum disruption—the image/video content that the coach is transmitting, etc.
Regarding each of claims 4 and 15, Luster in view of Sugihara teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 12 respectively.
The limitation, “one end portion interfaces with the helmet shell, the optical display is spaced apart from a facemask of the helmet and exposed for the player to view the optical display while wearing the helmet”, is already addressed above per the modification discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12 respectively.
This is because the structure above, which comprises the optical unit, is removably or permanently attached to the left frame or the right frame of the helmet; and thus, the one end portion already interfaces with the helmet shell. In addition, such helmet, which football player wears, normally incorporates a facemask that is positioned below the eyes of the player. Thus, given the fact that the optical unit above is positioned in the front of the left eye—or the right eye—of the player, basic common sense dictates that the optical display is already spaced apart from the facemask of the helmet and exposed for the player to view the optical display while wearing the helmet.
The observation above confirms that the modification discussed per each of the independent claims already addresses claims 4 and 15 (note that the same motivation above applies to each of claims 4 and 15).
Regarding claim 5, Luster in view of Sugihara teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1.
Luster already teaches, wherein the helmet apparatus further comprises a power source ([0034]: e.g., the helmet provides generates—via its speaker—audio data to the player; and thus, the helmet already comprises a power source).
Regarding each of claims 21 and 22, Luster in view of Sugihara teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1 and 12 respectively.
Sugihara further teaches, the optical piece is an adjustable optical piece ([0186]: e.g., a grove mechanism is used to attach the optical unit to the attachment; and wherein the grove mechanism allows the optical unit to slide along the groove mechanisms. This confirms that the optical unit is already an adjustable optical unit).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Luster in view of Sugihara; for example, by incorporating a groove mechanism as one of the options to attach the optical piece to the auxiliary structure; so that, the player would have further option to make one or more adjustments by sliding the optical piece to a desired position—such as, a minor adjustment that provides comfortable viewing experience to the paler, etc.
● Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Luster 2007/0143382 in view of Sugihara 2011/0234476 and also Bowring 2013/0139068.
Regarding claim 11, Luster in view of Sugihara teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Luster, as discussed per claim 1, already teaches that the coaching computer module at the coach portable computing device is linked to a playbook generation module and an electronic playbook ([0026] to [0028]: e.g., the electronic clipboard, i.e., the coach portable computing device, incorporates a library from which the coach selects audio and/or visual data for presentation, and/or editing the audio/visual content; and the electronic clipboard also allows the coach to write or draw new plays, etc. The above indicates that the coaching computer module at the coach portable computing device is already linked to a playbook generation module and an electronic playbook).
Luster does not expressly describe whether the software/data above (i.e., the playbook generation module and the electronic playbook) is stored at a remote server.
However, Bowring teaches a system/method that enhances sports gameplay and communication, wherein the system incorporates a portable wearable device (see FIG 3C, labels “320a”, “320b”, etc.) that each player wears during playing a game, including a football game; the system further incorporates a server that stores content items, including play instruction/information ([0022] to [0024]); and thereby, the system allows a coach to select and transmit a desired play instruction to each of one or more of the players ([0026]; [0031] to [0038]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Luster in view of Bowring; for example, by establishing at least one online server that stores various content items—such as, game playing strategies, game play formations, etc., wherein the server wirelessly communicates with each player’s wearable computer and the coach’s portable computer, etc., and thereby, the system allows the coach to select and transmit—from the online server—one or more pertinent content items (e.g., a play strategy, etc.) to each of the one or more plays during the game; and thereby, the arrangement above provides the coach with further option to easily select and transmit, from a large pool of content items, the most relevant content item in timely manner during a game, etc.
Response to Arguments.
6. Applicant’s arguments directed to section §103 have been fully considered (i.e., that arguments filed on 02/27/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while listing the limitations that claim 1 is reciting, Applicant’s makes a generic conclusion that “[t]he cited references fail to disclose or suggest at least the above noted subject matter, and there would have been no apparent reason for modification to arrive at the claimed features of any pending claim” (e.g., see the first two paragraphs on page 9 of the argument). However, such conclusory assertion is not valid since it fails to provide the rationale and/or evidence (if any) to substantiate the assertion.
Secondly, Applicant’s arguments directed to one of the previous references, namely Okamoto, is no longer relevant since the Office no longer relies on Okamoto. Instead, the Office is relying on a new reference, namely Sugihara, to address the newly added claimed feature. Thus, Applicant’s arguments directed to the new claimed feature are now moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented in this current office action.
Thus, at least for the reasons above, the Office concludes that current claims are still obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final 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 filled 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights