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 Objections
Claims 11-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11- 20 recite a number of functions without reciting structures capable of performing the functions or reciting the functions in a manner that require specific structures.
For example, claim 11 recites “a face area of a user of the protective helmet is illuminated when the user is wearing the protective helmet”. The limitation does not specifically require a light source in the helmet to illuminate the face, it is unclear if external light sources, ambient light, reflected light, etc read on the claim.
For claims 12-14 there are no specific requirements on “operating range” or “short range” or “long range”. It is unclear if these can be performed by the same light source or different light sources.
Claims 15 and 16 set forth a “helicopter LED”. There is no guidance as to the requirement of the light source. The claim sets forth that the light is directed upwards when wearing the helmet.
Such limitations are recited as entirely function. A functional limitation is a feature that is limited by “what it does rather than by what it is" In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). Although functional language does not render a claim improper, the prior art is only required to teach structure capable of performing the function as claimed. The language is recited in an extremely broad manner, and appears to be lacking critical structure to perform the functions.
The Examiner suggests reciting the structures and relationships of said structures in the claims.
Claim 19 recites “can be varied over time”. It is unclear if there is a structure that changes the lighting profiles dependent with time. The Examiner finds that manual control of the light sources results in the brightness or color being varied over time.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bullard (U.S. 12,349,755 effective filing date of 5/6/2022, all references made to US patent for ease of reference).
Regarding claim 11, Bullard teaches a helmet light (rim lighting system 104) for fastening to a protective helmet (helmet 102), wherein the helmet light can be switched into several different operating modes (see col. 5 lines 54-65, switchable between different lights) in which the helmet light emits light in each case, and
wherein, by the helmet light, in a first operating mode of the several different operating modes, a face area of a user of the protective helmet is illuminated when the user is wearing the protective helmet (face area is illuminated diffused light from downlight 412, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Bullard teaches that, by the helmet light, in a second operating mode of the several different operating modes, an operating range of the user of the protective helmet is illuminated when the user is wearing the protective helmet (forward light source 408, see col. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Bullard teaches a protective helmet comprising a helmet light according to claim 11.
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 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullard in view of Doughty (U.S. 2022/0357023).
Regarding claim 13, Bullard does not teach by the helmet light, in a third operating mode of the several different operating modes, a short range of the user of the protective helmet is illuminated when the user is wearing the protective helmet.
Doughty teaches in a third operating mode of the several different operating modes, a short range of the user of the protective helmet is illuminated when the user is wearing the protective helmet (task lighting element 1160, lower intensity than spot lighting element 1140).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included additional lighting elements as taught by Doughty for the front lighting structure of Bullard to provide additional options for different lighting requirements, see p. 0006-0010).
Regarding claim 14, Doughty teaches that, by the helmet light, in a fourth operating mode of the several different operating modes, a long range of the user of the protective helmet is illuminated when the user is wearing the protective helmet (spot lighting element 1140).
Claims 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullard in view of Doughty, further in view of Kenward ( US 2023/0172301, effective filing date of 5/5/2020 as GB 2006661.9, all references made to US publication for ease of reference).
Regarding claim 15, Doughty and Bullard does not teach an illumination module external to a helmet light housing which can be arranged at an outer side of a helmet shell of the protective helmet, wherein the illumination module has at least one helicopter LED, and wherein the helicopter LED, in a fifth operating mode of the several different operating modes, emits light upwards when the user is wearing the protective helmet.
Kenward teaches that the helmet light comprises an illumination module external to a helmet light housing (external to the front rim light) which can be arranged at an outer side of a helmet shell of the protective helmet (arranged in the outer shell), wherein the illumination module has at least one helicopter LED, and wherein the helicopter LED, in a fifth operating mode of the several different operating modes, emits light upwards when the user is wearing the protective helmet (light array 108).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used embedded shell light sources in alongside the rim light provided by Kenward and Doughty to provide additional light sources for conspicuity without dazzling viewers, see p. 0174-0176.
Regarding claim 16, Kenward teaches that the illumination module has at least one further helicopter LED which has a different beam direction from the helicopter LED, wherein the helicopter LED and the at least one further helicopter LED, in a sixth operating mode of the several different operating modes, emit light in different directions (other portion of light array 108).
Regarding claim 17, Kenward teaches that the several operating modes of the helmet light can be switched in any combinations (see p. 092-0095, can change number of illuminated light emitting elements).
Regarding claim 18, Kenward teaches that in each of the switchable operating modes of the helmet light, a brightness and/or a color of the emitted light can be preset and/or adjusted (see col. 6 lines 8-16, adjustable colors and lumens).
Regarding claim 19, Kenward teaches that in each of the switchable operating modes of the helmet light, a brightness or a color of the emitted light can be varied over time (selectively varied, see col. 6 lines 8-16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huss (U.S. 8,157,402), Summersett (U.S. 12,156,560), Cardoso (U.S. 8,117,676), Lombard (U.S. 7,845,816) each teaches an illuminated helmet with multiple modes of illumination.
Sharrah (U.S. 12,478,124) teaches an exterior modular lighting device that may be attached over a helmet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
