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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on October 15, 2025, in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Fig. 1-11 and 29-30, claims 1-20) in the reply filed on October 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker et al. “Baker” (US Patent 8,529,082).
Regarding claim 1, Baker discloses a safety helmet ensemble (as shown in Fig. 2-5) for enhancing visibility thereof when worn by a user (Abstract), the safety helmet ensemble comprising:
a safety helmet (10), the safety helmet comprising at least a crown portion (12), a front helmet portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and a rear helmet portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the crown portion for receiving a user' head at an interior portion thereof (“for receiving…thereof” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function) and comprising an exterior crown portion surface (surface of 12), the exterior crown portion surface having a crown portion circumference (shown as circumference of 12); and
a light accessory (32), the light accessory comprising a mounting ring (40b) and a light source assembly (combination of 44 and 60), the mounting ring (40b) comprising a central ring opening (see annotated Fig. 5 below), a top ring surface (see annotated Fig. 5 below), a bottom ring surface (see annotated Fig. 5 below), a front ring portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below), and a rear ring portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below), the central ring opening being configured to receive the crown portion (as shown in Fig. 3);
the light source assembly (60) comprising at least one circumferential light source (44) and a control unit (62), the circumferential light source being positioned in radial outer adjacency to the central ring opening so as to extend about at least a circumferential portion of the crown portion circumference at the exterior crown portion surface (examiner notes in Fig. 5 it is shown circumferential light source, 60, is positioned radially around the outer area of the central opening, and in Fig. 3, circumferential light source, 60, extends around the circumference of the crown portion), said circumferential light source (44) being configured to emit light at least radially outwardly relative to the crown portion (Col. 7, lines: 3-9);
the control unit (62) comprising a power source (34), said circumferential light source (44) being in electrical communication with the power source via the control unit (Col. 7, lines: 17-21), the control unit (44) enabling the user to selectively power on and power off said circumferential light source for enhancing visibility of the safety helmet ensemble (Col. 7, lines: 21-24).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3-Examiner Annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
839
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 2, Baker discloses wherein the crown portion at the exterior crown portion surface (12) comprises an exterior crown portion contour (contour of 12) and the mounting ring (40b) comprises a radially inner edge (see annotated Fig. 5 above) defining the central ring opening (see annotated Fig. 5 above) and configured to mate with the exterior crown portion contour for eliminating positional shift of the light accessory relative to the safety helmet when mounted thereto (“configured to …thereto” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Baker discloses wherein the mounting ring (40b) comprises scalloped portions (88, Fig. 5) at the radially inner edge (as shown in Fig. 3 and 5, Col. 8, lines: 55-57), the scalloped portions (88) defining radially extending contours relative to the central ring opening (as shown in Fig. 3, Col. 8, lines: 53-57) configured to mate with radially extending contours of the exterior crown portion surface at the crown portion circumference (“configured to …circumference” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Col. 8, line: 66-Col. 9, line: 4).
Regarding claim 4, Baker discloses wherein the circumferential light source (44) comprises a circular transverse cross-section (as shown in Fig. 5) for emitting light at least radially outwardly from the circular transverse cross-section for maximizing visibility thereof (“for emitting …thereof” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Col. 6, line: 66-Col. 7, line: 3).
Regarding claim 11, Baker discloses a light accessory (combination of 40b, 60, and 62, Fig. 2-5) for enhancing visibility of a hat crown portion (12, Abstract), the light accessory comprising:
a mounting ring (40b) and a light source assembly (60), the mounting ring comprising a central ring opening (see annotated Fig. 5 above), a top ring surface (see annotated Fig. 5 above), a bottom ring surface (see annotated Fig. 5 above), a front ring portion (see annotated Fig. 5 above), and a rear ring portion (see annotated Fig. 5 above), the central ring opening being configured to receive the hat crown portion (as shown in Fig. 3), the hat crown portion having a crown portion circumference (shown as circumference of 12);
the light source assembly (60) comprising at least one circumferential light source (44) and a control unit (62), the circumferential light source being positioned in radial outer adjacency to the central ring opening so as to extend about at least a circumferential portion of the crown portion circumference (examiner notes in Fig. 5 it is shown circumferential light source, 60, is positioned radially around the outer area of the central opening, and in Fig. 3, circumferential light source, 60, extends around the circumference of the crown portion), said circumferential light source (44) being configured to emit light at least radially outwardly relative to the crown portion (Col. 7, lines: 3-9);
the control unit (62) comprising a power source (34), said circumferential light source (44) being in electrical communication with the power source via the control unit (Col. 7, lines: 17-21), the control unit (44) enabling the user to selectively power on and power off said circumferential light source for enhancing visibility of the hat crown portion (Col. 7, lines: 21-24).
Regarding claim 12, Baker discloses wherein the hat crown portion (12) comprises an exterior crown portion contour (contour of 12) and the mounting ring (40b) comprises a radially inner edge (see annotated Fig. 5 above) defining the central ring opening (see annotated Fig. 5 above) and configured to mate with the exterior crown portion contour for eliminating positional shift of the light accessory relative to the safety helmet when mounted thereto (“configured to …thereto” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Baker discloses wherein the mounting ring (40b) comprises scalloped portions (88, Fig. 5) at the radially inner edge (as shown in Fig. 3 and 5, Col. 8, lines: 55-57), the scalloped portions (88) defining radially extending contours relative to the central ring opening (as shown in Fig. 3, Col. 8, lines: 53-57) configured to mate with radially extending contours of the exterior crown portion surface at the crown portion circumference (“configured to …circumference” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Col. 8, line: 66-Col. 9, line: 4).
Regarding claim 14, Baker discloses wherein the circumferential light source (44) comprises a circular transverse cross-section (as shown in Fig. 5) for emitting light at least radially outwardly from the circular transverse cross-section for maximizing visibility thereof (“for emitting …thereof” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Col. 6, line: 66-Col. 7, line: 3).
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.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Resnick et al. “Resnick” (US PG Pub. 2015/0316698).
Regarding claim 5, Baker discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Baker does not disclose circumferential light source is characterized by a combination of a side glow fiber optic cable and at least one light-emitting diode.
However, Resnick teaches yet another invention in the field of endeavor of illumination, wherein Resnick teaches a circumferential light source (12) is characterized by a combination of a side glow fiber optic cable (Par. 0022, lines: 10-12) and at least one light-emitting diode (Par. 0024, lines: 6-8).
Therefore, 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 circumferential light source as disclosed by Baker, by incorporating a combination of a side glow fiber optic cable and at least one light-emitting diode as taught by Resnick, in order to enhance uniformity in glow and reduce heating from the light.
Regarding claim 6, Baker in view of Resnick disclose the side glow fiber optic cable (12 of Resnick) comprises two ends housed within the control unit (at ends of elements 14 and 24 in Fig. 1), each of the two ends being outfitted with a light-emitting diode (Par. 0021, lines: 7-10 and Par. 0024) for directing light into the side glow fiber optic cable (Par. 0024, lines: 6-7).
Regarding claim 7, Baker in view of Resnick disclose the circumferential light source (44 of Baker modified by Resnick to incorporate a side glow fiber optic cable and at least one light-emitting diode as explained in the rejection of claim 5) is configured to emit light of differing colors as controlled by the user (“configured to…user” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Par. 0024, lines: 9-12 of Resnick).
Regarding claim 8, Baker in view of Resnick disclose wherein the circumferential light source (44 of Baker modified by Resnick to incorporate a side glow fiber optic cable and at least one light-emitting diode as explained in the rejection of claim 5) is configured to emit light in at least one of continuous light-emitting mode (“configured to…mode” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Par. 0024, lines: 6-7 and 12-14, Par. 0025, lines: 3-4 of Resnick. Examiner notes while the switch is positioned to “on” the light emitted is continuous, until switched to the “off” position).
Regarding claim 15, Baker discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Baker does not disclose circumferential light source is characterized by a combination of a side glow fiber optic cable and at least one light-emitting diode.
However, Resnick teaches yet another invention in the field of endeavor of illumination, wherein Resnick teaches a circumferential light source (12) is characterized by a combination of a side glow fiber optic cable (Par. 0022, lines: 10-12) and at least one light-emitting diode (Par. 0024, lines: 6-8).
Therefore, 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 circumferential light source as disclosed by Baker, by incorporating a combination of a side glow fiber optic cable and at least one light-emitting diode as taught by Resnick, in order to enhance uniformity in glow and reduce heating from the light.
Regarding claim 16, Baker in view of Resnick disclose the side glow fiber optic cable (12 of Resnick) comprises two ends housed within the control unit (at ends of elements 14 and 24 in Fig. 1), each of the two ends being outfitted with a light-emitting diode (Par. 0021, lines: 7-10 and Par. 0024) for directing light into the side glow fiber optic cable (Par. 0024, lines: 6-7).
Regarding claim 17, Baker in view of Resnick disclose the circumferential light source (44 of Baker modified by Resnick to incorporate a side glow fiber optic cable and at least one light-emitting diode as explained in the rejection of claim 5) is configured to emit light of differing colors as controlled by the user (“configured to…user” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Par. 0024, lines: 9-12 of Resnick).
Regarding claim 18, Baker in view of Resnick disclose wherein the circumferential light source (44 of Baker modified by Resnick to incorporate a side glow fiber optic cable and at least one light-emitting diode as explained in the rejection of claim 5) is configured to emit light in at least one of continuous light-emitting mode (“configured to…mode” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Par. 0024, lines: 6-7 and 12-14, Par. 0025, lines: 3-4 of Resnick. Examiner notes while the switch is positioned to “on” the light emitted is continuous, until switched to the “off” position).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Ernst et al. “Ernst” (US Patent 11,903,437).
Regarding claim 9, Baker discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Baker does not disclose the exterior crown portion surface comprises a light-reflective material, the emitting light being reflected from the light-reflective material for maximizing visibility thereof.
However, Ernst teaches yet another safety helmet ensemble, wherein Ernst teaches an exterior crown portion surface (surface of 102 that extends around element 106 in Fig. 1) comprises a light-reflective material (Col. 4, lines: 20-23 and lines: 29-33, examiner notes window 106, positioned on the crown of the helmet comprises a “reflective” feature), the emitting light being reflected from the light-reflective material for maximizing visibility thereof (“being reflected…thereof” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Col. 4, lines: 20-23).
Therefore, 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 exterior crown portion surface as disclosed by Baker, by incorporating a light-reflective material as taught by Ernst, in order to enhance visibility of the helmet.
Regarding claim 19, Baker discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Baker does not disclose the exterior crown portion surface comprises a light-reflective material, the emitting light being reflected from the light-reflective material for maximizing visibility thereof.
However, Ernst teaches yet another safety helmet ensemble, wherein Ernst teaches an exterior crown portion surface (surface of 102 that extends around element 106 in Fig. 1) comprises a light-reflective material (Col. 4, lines: 20-23 and lines: 29-33, examiner notes window 106, positioned on the crown of the helmet comprises a “reflective” feature), the emitting light being reflected from the light-reflective material for maximizing visibility thereof (“being reflected…thereof” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Col. 4, lines: 20-23).
Therefore, 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 exterior crown portion surface as disclosed by Baker, by incorporating a light-reflective material as taught by Ernst, in order to enhance visibility of the hat.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Gall et al. “Gall” (US PG Pub. 2020/0248896).
Regarding claim 10, Baker discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Baker does not disclose the top ring surface comprises a light-reflective material, the emitting light being reflected from the light-reflective material for maximizing visibility thereof.
However, Gall teaches yet another invention in the field of endeavor of illumination, wherein Gall teaches a top ring surface (surface of 22 that reflective material 110 is placed on, in Fig. 1) comprises a light-reflective material (110), the emitting light being reflected from the light-reflective material for maximizing visibility thereof (Par. 0043, lines: 22-24).
Therefore, 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 top ring surface as disclosed by Baker, by incorporating a light-reflective material as taught by Gall, in order to enhance visibility (Par. 0043, lines: 22-24).
Regarding claim 20, Baker discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Baker does not disclose the top ring surface comprises a light-reflective material, the emitting light being reflected from the light-reflective material for maximizing visibility thereof.
However, Gall teaches yet another invention in the field of endeavor of illumination, wherein Gall teaches a top ring surface (surface of 22 that reflective material 110 is placed on, in Fig. 1) comprises a light-reflective material (110), the emitting light being reflected from the light-reflective material for maximizing visibility thereof (Par. 0043, lines: 22-24).
Therefore, 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 top ring surface as disclosed by Baker, by incorporating a light-reflective material as taught by Gall, in order to enhance visibility (Par. 0043, lines: 22-24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHALED ANNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732