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 .
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) 8-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20240008577 A1 (ISOBE; Eiji).
PNG
media_image1.png
800
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
720
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
796
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claim 8, Isobe teaches a helmet [1], comprising: a shell [2]; a face shield movably connected to the shell [3, see paragraph 0021: “The support mechanisms 4 support the shield 3 to be movable between the open position and the closed position”]; a screen located adjacent to the face shield [10]; and adjustment mechanisms in communication with the screen so that the screen is movable relative to the shell [11].
Per claim 9, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 8, wherein a portion of the screen overlaps the shell and a portion of the screen overlaps the face shield [as the screen is formed inside the helmet, it inherently overlaps both the shell and shield depending on the point of view].
Per claim 13, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 8, wherein the adjustment mechanisms comprise fasteners that assist in moving the adjustment mechanisms, fixing the adjustment mechanisms, or both [53 and 42].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240008577 A1 (ISOBE; Eiji).
Per claim 1, Isobe teaches a helmet [1], comprising: a face shield [3], comprising: a screen [10] that is flexible; and adjustment mechanisms that are configured to move the screen toward or away from an eye of a user of the helmet to change a focal length of the screen relative the eye of the user [11]. Though Isobe teaches using materials such as polycarbonate, Isobe does not explicitly teach screen 10 is formed from a flexible polymer. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the screen 10 from a flexible polycarbonate in order to prevent injury to the user during use. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 2, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanisms are connected to the face shield so that as the adjustment mechanisms move, the screen moves [3, see paragraph 0021: “The support mechanisms 4 support the shield 3 to be movable between the open position and the closed position.”]
Per claim 3, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 2, but lacks the adjustment mechanisms are threaded members that rotate about axes, and wherein the screen moves along the axes to change the focal length of the screen. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the adjustment mechanisms with threaded members that rotate about axes, and wherein the screen moves along the axes to change the focal length of the screen to simplify manufacturing. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 4, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 2, but lacks the adjustment mechanisms are hand knobs that are rotatable from an outside of the helmet. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the adjustment mechanisms are hand knobs that are rotatable from an outside of the helmet to simplify user screen adjustments. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 5, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the face shield further comprises: an outer frame; and an inner frame that is in communication with the screen, wherein the inner frame and the screen are movable relative to the outer frame by the adjustment mechanisms [inherent, as the screen, shell, and shield form a single unit with thus allowing communication amongst all the helmet elements].
Per claim 6, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanisms are further configured to rotate the screen about a longitudinal axis of the screen [inherent, as the longitudinal axis is a relative term and is not clearly defined].
Per claim 7, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 1, further comprising: an anchor point that prevents a portion of the screen from being moved by the adjustment mechanisms [11, see the slot shown in figure 2].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per claim 10, Isobe teaches the helmet of claim 8, wherein the screen is part of an electronic module [module shown in figure 5 including projector 60] and the electronic module comprises: an outer frame located on a first side of the screen; an inner frame on a second side of the screen [see figure 5]. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach lenses located at ends of the inner frame that are movable with the inner frame when the inner frame is moved by the adjustment mechanisms.
Per claim 14, the prior art teaches the helmet of claim 8. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach a first lens located at a first end of the screen; and a second lens located at a second end of the screen, wherein the adjustment mechanisms are configured to independently move the first end and the second end of the screen.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Per claim 15, the prior art teaches a helmet [1], comprising: a shell [2] including an eyeport [region corresponding to shield 3]; an electronic module located within the shell adjacent to the eyeport [10] and adjustment mechanisms having adjustment components [11]. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach adjustment mechanisms having adjustment components located adjacent to opposing ends of the electronic module so that the opposing ends of the electronic module are movable independently and relative to the shell using the adjustment components.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights