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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the grinding shield (claim 21), welding lens (claim 21), first position (claim 21 and 23), second position (claim 21 and 23), the light source attached to helmet shell (claim 22), an auto darkening lens (claim 24), a removeable cover (claim 25), a controller (claim 30), a sensor (claim 30) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-31 recite “welding -type helmet”. It is unclear what constitutes a “welding-type” helmet. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, as it is not clear what structure applicant is attempting to limit to “welding-type”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the" with respect to a bezel. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 21-24 and 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson (US 2011/0101890). The device of Robinson teaches,
With respect to claim 21, A welding-type helmet (60) comprising:
a grinding shield (shield area surrounding 61; Figures 1 and 2);
a welding lens (1) configured to selectively cover at least a portion of the grinding shield (Figure 2) and shield a field of view of the wearer while in a first position (Figure 1) and to allow the wearer to view through only the grinding shield while in a second position (figure 2);
a lens (62) defining a top, a bottom, a first side, a second side, an interior side, and an exterior side (see all sides shown in figure 2), wherein the lens (62) is coupled to the helmet (60) and configured to protect a user wearing the helmet. It is noted the language “configured to protect a user wearing the helmet is a recitation of intended use; the prior art teaches a lens attached to a helmet as required by the claims and would be capable for use to protect a user, see MPEP 2114;
and a light source (10) configured to illuminate (Figures 8 and 9) at least partially forward and at least partially downward both while the welding lens is in the first position and while the welding lens is in the second position (Figure 1). It is noted the language “configured to illuminate at least partially forward and at least partially downward both while the welding lens is in the first position and while the welding lens is in the second positioned is a functional limitation. The light is shown to radiate outwards both at least partially forward and down, and is operable in both a first and second position of the welding lens 61, therefore meeting the claim language as currently recited. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 22, further comprising a helmet shell (see exterior of 60), wherein the light source (10) is attached to the helmet shell (Figures 1 and 3).
With respect to claim 23, wherein the welding lens (61) is configured to move from the first position to the second position by rotating with respect to the helmet shell. (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
With respect to claim 24, wherein the welding lens comprises an auto-darkening lens (para 0032).
With respect to claim 26, further comprising a bezel (see frame on the helmet base, figure 2) around the welding lens (when in the closed position), wherein the bezel is configured to hold the light source (10, figure 2).
With respect to claim 27, wherein the bezel (see frame figure 2) comprises a channel (Para 0034), the light source being positioned within the channel (para 0034).
With respect to claim 28, wherein the channel is recessed from the bezel (Figure 9; para 0034).
With respect to claim 29, wherein the light source (10) is positioned on a lower perimeter of the bezel (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 30, further comprising a controller (para 003 and 0014) to selectively activate the light source in response to a signal from a sensor (41, 44). The language to selectively activate is a functional recitation. The prior art teaches a controller that is capable for uses to activate a light source in response to a sensor and therefore meets the claim language as recited, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 31, wherein the light source (10) comprises a light emitting diode (para 0012) or a strip that includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.
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) 21, 22, 24, 25, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 9,271,871) in view of Graham (US 9,629,752). The device of Wright teaches
With respect to claim 21, A welding-type helmet comprising:
a grinding shield (110);
a welding lens (220) configured to selectively cover at least a portion of the grinding shield (Figure 1) and shield a field of view of the wearer while in a first position (Figure 1) and to allow the wearer to view through only the grinding shield while in a second position (when removed)
a lens (230) defining a top (top side; figure 1), a bottom (bottom edge, figure 1), a first side (left side, figure 1), a second side (right side, figure 1), an interior side (inner surface, figure 2), and an exterior side (outer surface, figure 1), wherein the lens (230) is removably coupled to the helmet (Figure 1) and configured to protect a user wearing the helmet. It is noted the language “configured to protect a user wearing the helmet is a recitation of intended use; the prior art teaches a lens attached to a helmet as required by the claims and would be capable for use to protect a user, see MPEP 2114;
The device of Wright substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a light source.
The device of Graham teaches a welding helmet having a light source (40) configured to illuminate at least partially forward and at least partially downward (figure 3) both while the welding lens is in the first position and while the welding lens is in the second position (when removed). It is noted the language “configured to illuminate at least partially forward and at least partially downward both while the welding lens is in the first position and while the welding lens is in the second positioned is a functional limitation. The light is shown to radiate outwards both at least partially forward and down, and would be operable to radiate in both a first and second position of the welding lens since it would be positioned above the removable lens structure when combined, therefore meeting the functional claim language as currently recited. See MPEP 2114. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to utilize the light source taught by Graham in order to provide improved viewing while welding (Column 2, lines 55-60).
With respect to claim 22, further comprising a helmet shell (20) wherein the light source (40) is attached to the helmet shell (Figures 1).
With respect to claim 24, wherein the welding lens comprises an auto-darkening lens (para 0010).
With respect to claim 25, further comprising a removable cover lens (210) configured to cover the welding lens. It is noted the language “configured to cover the welding lens a functional recitation; the prior art teaches a lens attached to a helmet as required by the claims and would be covering the welding lens as recited, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 30, the device of Graham further comprising a controller (53) to selectively activate the light source in response to a signal from a sensor (42). The language to selectively activate is a functional recitation. The prior art teaches a controller that is capable for uses to activate a light source in response to a sensor and therefore meets the claim language as recited, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 31, wherein the light source (40) comprises a light emitting diode (abstract) or a strip that includes a plurality of light emitting diodes.
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