DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (Figs. 3-4) in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the alleged species do not have mutually exclusive characteristics. This is found persuasive and the requirement for restriction of July 14, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Accordingly, claims 1-21 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-21.
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 one or more sensors (claim 4) and the one or more circuits (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “330” has been used to designate both the auto-release component (para. 0042) and input component (para. 0043);
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “250” in Figs. 2-3 and “320” in Fig. 3.
Photographs (Figs. 2-4) and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
Photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: "PC" in para. 0024 is an abbreviation and the first instance of abbreviations must be preceded by the formal name and then the abbreviation in parentheses, for example "personal computer (PC)".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“tightening mechanism” (configured for setting or adjusting tightness of the head strap component on the user's head) in claims 1, 6, 9-11, 14, 16, and 18-19. The tightening mechanism is shown as 220 in Figs. 2-3 and disclosed in paras. 0031-0032, 0039, 0043, 0046, and 0049 which disclose the functions of the tightening mechanism and that the tightening mechanism comprises the tightening control component;
“tightening control component” (for enabling the setting or adjusting of the tightness of the head strap component) in claims 1 and 13-14. The tightening control component is shown as 230 in Figs. 2-3 and disclosed as knob or dial in para. 0032;
“feedback component” (configured to generate and/or output the feedback) in claim 2. The feedback component is shown as 250 in Figs. 2-3 and disclosed in para. 0034 as “This may include both existing feedback components (e.g., existing speaker, screen, etc.), and/or new feedback components integrated into the welding-type headgear for providing the required feedback”;
“input component” (configured for enabling applying user input relating to controlling the tightening mechanism and/or functions of the tightening mechanism) in claim 11. The input component is shown as 330 in Fig. 3 and referred to in para. 0043;
“one or more reducing components” (configured to reduce at least a portion of the tightness of the head strap component in response to user input) in claim 18. The one or more reducing components are shown as 320 (or 330) in Fig. 3 and referred to in para. 0042;
“one or more auto-tightening components” (configured to automatically set the tightness of the head strap component) in claims 19-20. The auto-tightening component is shown as 310 in Fig. 3 and disclosed in para. 0041.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 should recite, “wherein the welding-type headgear….”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 6, 9-11, 14, 16, and 18-20 (and claims 2-5, 7-8, 12-13, 15, 17, and 21 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11, 14, 16, and 18-19 each recite the “tightening mechanism” which has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The tightening mechanism is shown as 220 in Figs. 2-3 and disclosed in paras. 0031-0032, 0039, 0043, 0046, and 0049 which disclose the functions of the tightening mechanism and that the tightening mechanism comprises the tightening control component, but other than a generic portion on the rear of the headband, no structure of the tightening mechanism is disclosed beyond the dial/knob portion (tightening control component) which is only a part of the tightening mechanism. Throughout the claims, the tightening mechanism is claimed as capable of performing a number of functions as detailed below, however no structure capable of performing such functions is shown or disclosed and no additional references beyond the provisional application are incorporated by reference and it is unknown how each claimed function can be achieved. Therefore the tightening mechanism was not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. The following functions of the “tightening mechanism” have been claimed:
configured for setting or adjusting tightness of the head strap component on the user's head (claim 1);
configured to perform one or both of: providing, when the tightness of the head strap component reaches a pre-set value, feedback to indicate that the pre-set value is reached; and limiting, after the tightness of the head strap component reaches the pre-set value, the setting or adjusting the tightness of the head strap component via the at least one tightening control component to the pre-set value (claim 1);
configured to enable adjusting the pre-set value in response to user input (claim 9);
configured to enable applying the user input by use of a suitable tool (claim 10);
configured to enable overriding the limiting of the setting or adjusting of the tightness of the head strap component via the at least one tightening control component (claim 14);
configured to limit the setting or adjusting the tightness of the head strap component by causing the dial to slip after reaching the pre-set value (claim 15).
Claim 11 recites, “wherein welding-type headgear further comprises an input component configured for enabling applying user input relating to controlling the tightening mechanism and/or functions of the tightening mechanism” and “input component” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The input component is shown as 330 in Fig. 3 which merely points to a location on the headgear and not to any actual structure. Further, the input component is disclosed in para. 0043 as “For example, welding-type headgear 300 may comprise an input component (device) 330 configured for enabling applying user input relating to controlling the tightening mechanism and/or functions of the tightening mechanism as described herein” which is also devoid of any structure. Therefore it is only known generically what the input component does, but not what the input component actually is and therefore the limitation fails to comply with the requirement for written description. Examiner notes a tool 400 also exists that apply user input (see para. 0046 and Fig. 4), but this tool is different from the input component.
Claim 18 recites, “wherein the tightening mechanism comprises one or more reducing components configured to reduce at least a portion of the tightness of the head strap component in response to user input”, and “one or more reducing components” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The one or more reducing components are generically shown as 320 (or 330 according to para. 0042) in Fig. 3 which merely points to a location on the tightening mechanism and not to any actual structure. Para. 0042 discusses the reducing component which indicates, “The auto-release component 330 may be a dedicated (newly added) component, may be an existing component (e.g., a tightening control component, such as the tightening control component 230 in the headgear 300) configured to enable auto-release related functions. The value or amount by which the tightness may be reduced or released may be adaptively set or selected. The auto-release component 330 may also be used in setting or adjusting the release or reduction amount—e.g., based on interaction with the component, and/or characteristics or parameters associated therein (e.g., duration). The interaction may be done in any suitable manner, such as based on type of component used. For example, in knob or dial based implementations, the interaction may be done by pushing or pulling the knob or dial to reduce at least a portion of the tightness of the head strap component in response to user input, with the amount of release or reduction being governed by duration of pushing or pulling.” At most, this indicates that the “tightening control component” which is a knob/dial can be the auto release component or that pushing or pulling the knob/dial can affect auto release, but as claimed, the one or more reducing components is claimed separately from the tightening control component and no specific structure is shown or disclosed to reduce the tightness of the head strap. Therefore, this limitation fails to comply with the requirement for written description.
Claim 19 recites, wherein the tightening mechanism comprises one or more auto-tightening components configured to automatically set the tightness of the head strap component”, claim 20 recites, “wherein the one or more auto-tightening components are configured to automatically set the tightness of the head strap component to the pre-set value in response to user input”, and “ one or more auto-tightening components” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The auto-tightening component is shown generically shown as 310 in Fig. 3 which merely points to a location on the tightening control mechanism and not to any actual structure. Para. 0041 discloses the auto-tightening component and recites, “the welding-type headgear 300 may comprise an auto‐tightening component 310 configured to automatically set the tightness of the head strap component, such in response to the user input. For example, auto‐tightening component 310 may automatically set the tightness of the head strap component to one of the pre-set value(s) in response to user input”, however there is no further discussion of such components. In short, there is no specific structure shown that is responsible for automatic tightening the head strap to the pre-set value or any other value. Therefore, this limitation fails to comply with the requirement for written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-21 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 1-21 are indefinite as each recites, a “welding-type system”. It is unclear what “type” is intended to convey and therefore unclear what systems are included or excluded by “a welding-type system”.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 11-12 indefinite as it recites, “a welding-type headgear configured for use during welding-type operation”. It is unclear what “type” is intended to convey and it is unclear what headgear is included or excluded by the claim. For example does this included any face covering headgear, any headgear with head straps that tighten, or otherwise. Claims 2, 4, and 11-12 are likewise indefinite for “welding-type headgear”.
Claim limitation “tightening mechanism” in claims 1, 6, 9-11, 14, 16, and 18-19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not show or disclose the structure of the tightening mechanism or how the tightening mechanism performs any of the claimed function. A generic structure is shown mounted on or around portions of the head strap component, but other than the knob/dial, there is no structure shown how the head strap component is adjusted for tightness, how a pre-set value is set or determined by any structure, how the structure would know if the pre-set value is reached, how the pre-set value can be overridden, or how the dial can slip. It is unclear if there are cables, reels, connectors, teeth, arms, covers, motors, plates, racks, gears, or any of the above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the welding- type headgear comprises a feedback component configured to generate and/or output the feedback.” As claim 1 recites, “wherein the tightening mechanism is configured to perform one or both of: providing, when the tightness of the head strap component reaches a pre-set value, feedback to indicate that the pre-set value is reached”, it is unclear if the feedback component is a structure anywhere within the headgear of if the feedback component is part of the tightening mechanism. This is made further unclear as the feedback component is shown as part of the tightening control component.
Claim 7 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the pre-set value is selected from a plurality of pre-set values.” As the feedback is provide when the pre-set value is reached, it appears there is only one pre-set value and therefore if the pre-set value is selected from a plurality of pre-set values, it is unclear how many values are required to meet claim 7, as it could be just one or more than one. Does this mean that the pre-set value can be changed or that there is feedback provided at multiple pre-set values?
Claim 10 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the tightening mechanism is configured to enable applying the user input by use of a suitable tool.” It is unclear how one of ordinary skill can ascertain how a tool is considered suitable and how much a tool can deviate and still be considered suitable.
Claim limitation “input component” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not show or disclose the structure of the input component or how the input component performs any of the claimed function. A generic location is shown on the right side of the headgear, but there is no structure shown that enables applying user input relating to controlling the tightening mechanism and/or functions of the tightening mechanism, as claimed. It is unclear if there is a button, a dial, or any other such structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See similar 35 USC 112(b) rejections above for options to overcome this rejection.
Claim 15 is indefinite as it recites, “a dial based assembly”. It is unclear what “based” is intended to convey. It is unclear if the limitation is simply claiming that the tightening control component is a dial or if it can be some other structure somehow based on a dial like a clock or a watch, for example.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the dial" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the dial” is referring to the dial based assembly from claim 15 or a different structure.
Claim 16 recites, “wherein the tightening mechanism is configured to limit the setting or adjusting the tightness of the head strap component by causing the dial to slip after reaching the pre-set value.” However, as no individual components are shown or disclosed such as gears, pawls, teeth, clutches, etc., it is unclear how the mechanism is configured to cause slipping of the dial after the pre-set value.
Claim 17 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein providing the feedback comprises generating a clicking sound by the dial based assembly after the tightness of the head strap component reaches the pre-set value.” However, as no individual components are shown or disclosed such as gears, pawls, teeth, clutches, etc., it is unclear how the mechanism is configured to cause clicking of the dial after the pre-set value.
Claim limitation “one or more reducing components” in claim 18 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not show or disclose the structure of the reducing component or how the reducing component performs any of the claimed function. A generic location is shown on tightening mechanism, but there is no structure shown that is configured to reduce at least a portion of the tightness of the head strap component in response to user input, as claimed. While a dial is shown, the dial is the tightening control component. It is unclear if there is a button, a dial, a releasable fastener or any other such structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See similar 35 USC 112(b) rejections above for options to overcome this rejection.
Claim limitation “one or more auto-tightening components” in claims 19-20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not show or disclose the structure of the auto-tightening component or how the reducing component performs any of the claimed function. A generic location is shown on tightening control component, but there is no structure shown that is configured to automatically set the tightness of the head strap component or configured to automatically set the tightness of the head strap component to the pre-set value in response to user input, as claimed. While a dial is shown, the dial is the tightening control component. It is unclear if there is a button, a dial, a or any other such structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See similar 35 USC 112(b) rejections above for options to overcome this rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WU (CN 105395314).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a welding-type system, comprising: a welding-type headgear configured for use by a user during welding-type operation (see Figs. 1-4 and first paragraph on p. 3 of the translation where the headgear of Figs. 1-4 can include a welding mask), the welding-type headgear comprising: a head strap component (1/2/3) configured for engaging user's head (see Abstract); and a tightening mechanism (18-27) configured for setting or adjusting tightness of the head strap component on the user's head (interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) (see above) and 18-17 of Wu is considered at least a functional equivalent as the racks 20a/20b within 18 to move ends 7a/7b of strap portion 2b bidirectionally, see p. 5, paragraphs 3-9 of translation); wherein the tightening mechanism comprises at least one tightening control component (knob 26) for enabling the setting or adjusting of the tightness of the head strap component (interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) (see above) and 26 of Wu is at least a functional equivalent as it can manually drive the connection belt 7b bidirectionally, see p. 5, paras. 7-8 of translation); and wherein the tightening mechanism is configured to perform providing, when the tightness of the head strap component reaches a pre-set value, feedback to indicate that the pre-set value is reached (as disclosed in on p. 2, final 2 paras. and p. 5, paras. 6 and 9 of translation, once resistance is detected, a signal from the pressure sensor to stop the motor, therefore a pre-set value of pressure has been set, and tactile feedback of the motor stopping and the headband no longer tightening can be felt by the wearer).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses wherein the welding- type headgear further comprises one or more sensors (pressure sensor, see p. 2, final 2 paras. and p. 5, paras. 6 and 9 of translation) configured to generate sensory information relating to the tightness of the head strap component (see p. 2, final 2 paras. and p. 5, paras. 6 and 9 of translation, where the pressure sensor detects the proper contact pressure).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a pressure sensor (see p. 2, final 2 paras. and p. 5, paras. 6 and 9 of translation),
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses wherein the pre-set value is pre-determined and pre-programmed into the tightening mechanism (as otherwise, the pressure sensor would not be able to detect the proper contact pressure).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses wherein welding-type headgear further comprises an input component (27) and configured for enabling applying user input relating to controlling the tightening mechanism and/or functions of the tightening mechanism (interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) (see above) and 27 of Wu is at least a functional equivalent as can be pressed by the wearer to initiate bidirectional movement (tightening/releasing) of the strap via the tightening mechanism, see p. 5, para. 6 of translation).
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses wherein the welding- type headgear further comprises a controller (22-25 and 27) comprising one or more circuits (24/27, see p. 5, para. 5-6 and 9 of translation) configured to monitor the tightness of the head strap component and/or to determine when the tightness of the head strap component reaches the pre-set value (as the sensor is located in 22, and once resistance is detected, a signal from the pressure sensor is sent to stop the motor, therefore a pre-set value of pressure has been set).
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses wherein the controller (22-25 and 27) is configured to determine when the tightness of the head strap component reaches the pre-set value based on sensory information (see p. 2, last two paras. p. 5, para. 5-6 and 9 of translation, as the sensor is located in 22, and once resistance is detected, a signal from the pressure sensor is sent to stop the motor, therefore a pre-set value of pressure has been set, and the controller receives a signal about the contact pressure forcing the motor to stop when the threshold has been reached).
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses wherein the tightening mechanism (18-27) is configured to enable adjusting of the tightness of the head strap component (1/2/3) via the at least one tightening control component (26, see p. 5, para. 7 where the knob 26 is manual for a more personalized selection).
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses wherein the at least one tightening control component (26) comprises a dial based assembly (see Fig. 4 and note that a knob can be considered a dial absent further distinguishing limitations).
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses wherein the tightening mechanism comprises one or more reducing components (27) configured to reduce at least a portion of the tightness of the head strap component in response to user input (interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) (see above) and 27 of Wu is at least functional equivalent as it can be pressed by the wearer to initiate bidirectional movement (tightening/releasing) of the strap via the tightening mechanism, see p. 5, para. 6 of translation).
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses wherein the tightening mechanism comprises one or more auto-tightening components (27) configured to automatically set the tightness of the head strap component (interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) (see above) and 27 of Wu is at least functional equivalent as it can be pressed by the wearer to initiate bidirectional movement (tightening/releasing) of the strap via the tightening mechanism, see p. 5, para. 6 of translation, and sets the tightness automatically based on the contact pressure detected by the pressure sensor which is communicated through the controller to make the motor stop, see p. 2, last two paras.).
Regarding claim 20, Wu discloses wherein the one or more auto-tightening components (27) are configured to automatically set the tightness of the head strap component to the pre-set value in response to user input (as 27 can be pressed by the wearer to initiate bidirectional movement (tightening/releasing) of the strap it sets the tightness automatically based on the contact pressure detected by the pressure sensor which is communicated through the controller to make the motor stop, see p. 2, last two paras.).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barlow (US 2023/0337937).
Regarding 2, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the welding- type headgear comprises a feedback component configured to generate and/or output the feedback.
Barlow teaches a headgear system (7000) with headgear (3300) with straps (3310/3313) comprising a feedback component (sound transducer 7130, see para. 0649, i.e. speakers, see para. 0506) configured to generate and/or output the feedback (interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) (see above) and the sound transducer disclosed in para. 0649 to provide the feedback based on the strap tension sensor are at least functional equivalents to the speaker or screen of the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a feedback component to the welding-type system of Wu, as taught by Barlow, as the sound transducer/speakers is “configured to direct sound in a substantially posterior direction towards the user’s ears” (see para. 0506 of Barlow), thereby ensuring the user has been alerted that the head strap component has been tightened before they begin welding and thus preventing potential harm to the wearer.
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the feedback comprises one or more of haptic feedback, audible feedback, or visual feedback.
Barlow teaches a headgear system (7000) with headgear (3300) with straps (3310/3313) wherein the feedback (para. 0649, feedback based on the strap tension sensor as provided by sound transducer 7130, i.e. speakers, see para. 0506) comprises audible feedback (as speakers provide audio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the feedback of the strap tension of the welding-type system of Wu, audible feedback, as taught by Barlow, as the sound transducer/speakers is “configured to direct sound in a substantially posterior direction towards the user’s ears” (see para. 0506 of Barlow), thereby ensuring the user has been alerted that the head strap component has been tightened before they begin welding and thus preventing potential harm to the wearer.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Beers (US 2014/0070042)
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the pre-set value is selected from a plurality of pre-set values.
Beers teaches a tightening mechanism (358) for a strap (380) on headwear (354) wherein the pre-set value is selected from a plurality of pre-set values (see paras. 0078 and 0084 where various tension settings can be stored by the user, i.e. pre-set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of pre-set values in the system of Wu, as taught by Beers, as “a user may prefer a tighter fit for playing sports and a looser fit for casual activities” (see para. 0084 of Beers) and in the case of headwear for welding, a user may prefer one fit for actively welding and another fit when the shield is flipped upward and the user is not actively welding but still wearing the helmet.
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the pre-set value is adjustable.
Beers teaches a tightening mechanism (358) for a strap (380) on headwear (354) wherein the pre-set value is adjustable (see para. 0078 which recites, “For example, a user may use a mobile device, such as an iPhone, at home to identify and set preferred tension settings”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pre-set value in the system of Wu, to be adjustable, as taught by Beers, “for improving comfort” (see para. 0078 of Beers) of the specific wearer at a given time as for a given amount of time, the original pre-set value may be comfortable, while at a later time it may feel too tight to the wearer, and the pre-set value needs adjustment.
Regarding claim 9, the modified system of Wu discloses wherein the tightening mechanism is configured to enable adjusting the pre-set value in response to user input (as modified, the pre-set value can be adjusted by a remote device 170 of Beers with a user interface, see para. 0078 of Beers).
Regarding claim 10, the modified system of Wu discloses wherein the tightening mechanism is configured to enable applying the user input by use of a suitable tool (as modified, the pre-set value can be adjusted by a remote device 170 of Beers that issues commands to the tightening mechanism (motorized tensioning device), see para. 0078 of Beers).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Cavanagh (US 2015/0007422).
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the tightening mechanism is configured to limit the setting or adjusting the tightness of the head strap component by causing the dial to slip after reaching the pre-set value.
Cavanagh teaches a device for tightening an article wherein the tightening mechanism (800, see para. 0052) is configured to limit the setting or adjusting the tightness of the strap component (see Fig. 8A) by causing the dial (804) to slip after reaching the pre-set value (see para. 0053 which states, “After the predetermined input torque and/or lace tension threshold is achieved, the pins 809 deflect radially out of the notches 805 so that the knob 804 slips relative to tension limiting component 808”; further see para. 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the tightening mechanism to limit the setting or adjusting the tightness of the strap component by causing the dial of Wu to slip when reaching the pre-set value, as taught by Cavanagh, “in order to protect the user and/or device or components” (see para. 0033 of Cavanagh).
Regarding claim 17, Wu discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein providing the feedback comprises generating a clicking sound by the dial based assembly after the tightness of the head strap component reaches the pre-set value.
Cavanagh teaches a device for tightening an article wherein providing the feedback comprises generating a clicking sound by the dial based assembly after the tightness of the head strap component reaches the pre-set value (see para. 0039 where the clutching mechanism can be considered part to the dial based assembly and further recites, “In still other embodiments, the clutching mechanisms described herein may provide an audible feedback, tactile feedback, and/or visual feedback to indicate the amount of tension that is applied to lace and/or to indicate that a maximum amount of tension has been applied. In one embodiment, the audible feedback and/or tactile feedback may involve a clicking sound and/or sensation”, i.e. at a maximum tension which can be set as a threshold/pre-set value, see para. 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the feedback to be a clicking sound by the dial based assembly after the tightness of the head strap component reaches the pre-set value of Wu to slip when reaching the pre-set value, as taught by Cavanagh, “to limit a user’s input” (see para. 0039 of Cavanagh) “in order to protect the user and/or device or components” (see para. 0033 of Cavanagh).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sommers (US 2015/0359286).
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses wherein the welding-type headgear (Figs. 1-4) comprises a welding mask (see p. 3, 1st para. of translation), but does not expressly disclose wherein the welding- type headgear comprises a welding helmet.
Sommers teaches headgear for protective headwear wherein the welding-type headgear (20) comprises a welding helmet (see Fig. 1 and para. 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the welding-type headgear of Wu to be a welding helmet as taught by Sommers in order to provide a more comprehensive head-mounted unit that provides greater protection to the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Sugerman (US 2014/0101828) teaches protective headwear with sensors to tighten the head strap, and Levesque (US 2017/0178471) teaches apparel including helmets with tightening and haptic indicators for when the article is too light to or too loose, and Yuan (US 12140769) teaches a method for automatically adjusting a head strap with a controller on a headwear device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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 571-272-5559. 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732