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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fergason (US 2005/0017152 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Fergason discloses an auto darkening filter lens 10 (denoted “auto-darkening lens”, see e.g. paragraph [0081] and Figure 1a) of a welding helmet 11 (see e.g. paragraph [0081] and Figure 1a), comprising:
a body including (see e.g. Figure 1a and the elements set forth as follows):
a viewing window 14 (denoted “controllable shutter”, see e.g. paragraph [0081] and Figure 1a) through which a user 12 (denoted “wearer”, see e.g. paragraph [0068] and Figure 1a) wearing the welding helmet 11 can view outside of the welding helmet 11 (see e.g. Figure 1a); and
a control panel, the control panel including (see e.g. Figures 1a-2b and including the elements as set forth as follows):
a surface 13 (denoted “structure or housing”, see e.g. paragraph [0086], Figures 1a-2b) defining a plurality of openings (i.e. for exposing LEDs 30 and actuators 18, see e.g. paragraph [0083], see e.g. Figures 2a-b) formed therein;
a plurality of actuators 18 (denoted “switches”, see e.g. paragraph [0069]), at least one of the plurality of actuators 18 being related to an operation feature of the auto darkening filter lens 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0069] for adjusting degree of shade), and each of the plurality of actuators 18 being located in one of the plurality of openings in the surface 13 (see e.g. Figures 1a-2b); and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 30 (denoted “indicators”, see e.g. paragraphs [0081]-[0082]), wherein each of the plurality of LEDs 30 relates to an operation of the auto darkening filter lens 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0082] for indicating a current shade or light transmitting condition).
In regard to claim 11, Fergason discloses a control panel for an auto darkening filter lens 10 (denoted “auto-darkening lens”, see e.g. paragraph [0081] and Figure 1a) of a welding helmet 11 see e.g. paragraph [0081] and Figure 1a), comprising including (see e.g. Figures 1a-2b and including the elements as set forth as follows):
a surface 13 (denoted “structure or housing”, see e.g. paragraph [0086], Figures 1a-2b) defining a plurality of openings (i.e. for exposing LEDs 30 and actuators 18, see e.g. paragraph [0083], see e.g. Figures 2a-b) formed therein;
a plurality of actuators 18 (denoted “switches”, see e.g. paragraph [0069]), at least one of the plurality of actuators 18 being related to an operation feature of the auto darkening filter lens 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0069] for adjusting degree of shade), and each of the plurality of actuators 18 being located in one of the plurality of openings in the surface 13 (see e.g. Figures 1a-2b); and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 30 (denoted “indicators”, see e.g. paragraphs [0081]-[0082]), wherein each of the plurality of LEDs 30 relates to an operation of the auto darkening filter lens 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0082] for indicating a current shade or light transmitting condition).
In regard to claim 16, Fergason discloses a welding helmet 11 (see e.g. paragraph [0081] and Figure 1a), comprising:
a shell (i.e. external housing portions of 13, see e.g. Figure 1a);
a headgear coupled to the shell (see e.g. Figure 1a and note that the user 12 is wearing the helmet 11 and thus part of element 13 may be considered headgear as it engages with the user’s head), the headgear being engageable with a user's head (see e.g. Figure 1a and note that the user 12 is wearing the helmet 11 and thus part of element 13 may be considered headgear as it engages with the user’s head); and
an auto darkening filter lens 10 (denoted “auto-darkening lens”, see e.g. paragraph [0081] and Figure 1a) coupled to the shell, the auto darkening filter lens including:
a body including having a viewing window 14 (denoted “controllable shutter”, see e.g. paragraph [0081] and Figure 1a) and a control panel, the control panel including (see e.g. Figures 1a-2b and note that the control panel is including the elements as set forth as follows):
a surface 13 (denoted “structure or housing”, see e.g. paragraph [0086], Figures 1a-2b) defining a plurality of openings (i.e. for exposing LEDs 30 and actuators 18, see e.g. paragraph [0083], see e.g. Figures 2a-b) formed therein;
a plurality of actuators 18 (denoted “switches”, see e.g. paragraph [0069]), at least one of the plurality of actuators 18 being related to an operation feature of the auto darkening filter lens 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0069] for adjusting degree of shade), and each of the plurality of actuators 18 being located in one of the plurality of openings in the surface 13 (see e.g. Figures 1a-2b); and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 30 (denoted “indicators”, see e.g. paragraphs [0081]-[0082]), wherein each of the plurality of LEDs 30 relates to an operation of the auto darkening filter lens 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0082] for indicating a current shade or light transmitting condition).
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 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fergason (US 2005/0017152 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above,
and each of the plurality of actuators 18 is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators 18 by a distance (see e.g. Figures 1b-2b).
Fergason fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the plurality of actuators is arranged in an array of rows and columns.
However, 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 device of Fergason with wherein the plurality of actuators is arranged in an array of rows and columns, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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 device of Fergason with wherein the plurality of actuators is arranged in an array of rows and columns.
Providing a desired configuration of the actuators would allow the device to be customized for particular uses or users.
In regard to claim 3, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the array of rows and columns includes two rows and three columns.
However, 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 device of Fergason with wherein the array of rows and columns includes two rows and three columns, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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 device of Fergason with wherein the array of rows and columns includes two rows and three columns.
Providing a desired configuration of the actuators would allow the device to be customized for particular uses or users.
In regard to claim 4, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
wherein the body (i.e. including at least element 10 in Figure 1b) includes a top end, a bottom end opposite to the top end, a first side, and a second side opposite to the first side, and the plurality of actuators 18 are closer to the first side than to the second side, and are closer to the bottom end than to the top end (see e.g. Figures 1a, 2a).
In regard to claim 5, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side, and closer to the bottom end than to the top end.
However, 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 device of Fergason with wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side, and closer to the bottom end than to the top end, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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 device of Fergason with wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side, and closer to the bottom end than to the top end.
Providing a desired configuration of the actuators, screen and other components of the device would allow the device to be customized for particular uses or users.
In regard to claim 6, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and each of the plurality of actuators 18 (denoted “switches”, see e.g. paragraph [0069]) is a button (see e.g. Figure 1b where each of the actuators 18 is a switch/button).
Fergason fails to disclose
a width of at least 10.0mm and a height of 9.0 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a width of at least 10.0mm and a height of 9.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Fergason with a width of at least 10.0mm and a height of 9.0 mm.
Providing an optimized height of the actuators would allow operation of the device under the specific operating conditions (i.e. being able to have sufficient contact with a user’s hand and/or protective gear on user’s hand).
In regard to claim 7, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of the plurality of actuators has a width of at least 12.0 mm and a height of at least 10.0 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein each of the plurality of actuators has a width of at least 12.0 mm and a height of at least 10.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Fergason with wherein each of the plurality of actuators has a width of at least 12.0 mm and a height of at least 10.0 mm.
Providing an optimized height of the actuators would allow operation of the device under the specific operating conditions (i.e. being able to have sufficient contact with a user’s hand and/or protective gear on user’s hand).
In regard to claim 8, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Fergason with wherein each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm.
Providing a configuration of actuators that has a particular spacing would allow operation of the device under the specific operating conditions (i.e. being able to have sufficient contact with a user’s hand and/or protective gear on user’s hand).
In regard to claim 9, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 4.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 4.0 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 4.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 4.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Fergason with wherein each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 4.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 4.0 mm.
Providing a configuration of actuators that has a particular spacing would allow operation of the device under the specific operating conditions (i.e. being able to have sufficient contact with a user’s hand and/or protective gear on user’s hand).
In regard to claim 10, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of the plurality of actuators has a substantially rectangular shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration in which wherein each of the plurality of actuators has a substantially rectangular shape, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 device of Fergason with wherein each of the plurality of actuators has a substantially rectangular shape.
Selecting a particular shape of the actuators would be considered a design choice that would not change the operability of the device and is considered a matter of design choice.
In regard to claim 12, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
each of the plurality of actuators 18 is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators 18 by a distance (see e.g. Figures 1b-2b).
Fergason fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the plurality of actuators is arranged in an array of rows and columns.
However, 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 device of Fergason with wherein the plurality of actuators is arranged in an array of rows and columns, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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 device of Fergason with wherein the plurality of actuators is arranged in an array of rows and columns.
Providing a desired configuration of the actuators would allow the device to be customized for particular uses or users.
In regard to claim 13, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the body (i.e. including at least element 10 in Figure 1b) includes a top end, a bottom end opposite to the top end, a first side, and a second side opposite to the first side, and the plurality of actuators 18 are closer to the first side than to the second side, and are closer to the bottom end than to the top end (see e.g. Figures 1a, 2a).
In regard to claim 14, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side.
However, 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 device of Fergason with wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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 device of Fergason with wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side.
Providing a desired configuration of the actuators, screen and other components of the device would allow the device to be customized for particular uses or users.
In regard to claim 15, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of the plurality of actuators is a substantially rectangular button having a width of at least 10.0 mm and a height of at least 9.0 mm, and each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration in which wherein each of the plurality of actuators is a substantially rectangular button, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a width of at least 10.0 mm and a height of at least 9.0 mm, and each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Fergason with wherein each of the plurality of actuators is a substantially rectangular button having a width of at least 10.0 mm and a height of at least 9.0 mm, and each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm.
Selecting a particular shape of the actuators would be considered a design choice that would not change the operability of the device and is considered a matter of design choice.
Further, providing a configuration of actuators that has a particular spacing/size would allow operation of the device under the specific operating conditions (i.e. being able to have sufficient contact with a user’s hand and/or protective gear on user’s hand).
In regard to claim 17, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and
each of the plurality of actuators 18 is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators 18 by a distance (see e.g. Figures 1b-2b).
Fergason fails to disclose
wherein the plurality of actuators is arranged in an array of two rows and three columns,
However, 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 device of Fergason with wherein the plurality of actuators is arranged in an array of two rows and three columns, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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 device of Fergason with wherein the array of rows and columns includes two rows and three columns.
In regard to claim 18, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, and
wherein the body (i.e. including at least element 10 in Figure 1b) includes a top end, a bottom end opposite to the top end, a first side, and a second side opposite to the first side, and the plurality of actuators 18 are closer to the first side than to the second side, and are closer to the bottom end than to the top end (see e.g. Figures 1a, 2a).
In regard to claim 19, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 18 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side, and closer to the bottom end than to the top end.
However, 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 device of Fergason with wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side, and closer to the bottom end than to the top end, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
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 device of Fergason with wherein the control panel includes a screen that is closer to the second side than to the first side, and closer to the bottom end than to the top end.
Providing a desired configuration of the actuators, screen and other components of the device would allow the device to be customized for particular uses or users.
In regard to claim 20, Fergason discloses the limitations as applied to claim 19 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of the plurality of actuators is a substantially rectangular button having a width of at least 10.0 mm and a height of at least 9.0 mm, and each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration in which wherein each of the plurality of actuators is a substantially rectangular button, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a width of at least 10.0 mm and a height of at least 9.0 mm, and each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Fergason with wherein each of the plurality of actuators is a substantially rectangular button having a width of at least 10.0 mm and a height of at least 9.0 mm, and each of the plurality of actuators is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in a horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm, and is spaced apart from another one of the plurality of actuators in the horizontal direction by a distance greater than 3.0 mm.
Selecting a particular shape of the actuators would be considered a design choice that would not change the operability of the device and is considered a matter of design choice.
Further, providing a configuration of actuators that has a particular spacing/size would allow operation of the device under the specific operating conditions (i.e. being able to have sufficient contact with a user’s hand and/or protective gear on user’s hand).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights