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
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “to permit replacement of either one the battery or the second battery” should be written as “to permit replacement of either one of the battery or the second battery” or “to permit replacement of either the battery or the second battery.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites dependency upon “the helmet” of Claim 4. Claim 5, however, is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what “helmet” is being referenced when Claim 4 is explicitly drawn to a helmet system. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claim 5 depends from the helmet system instead of the helmet.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites dependency upon “the helmet” of Claim 3. Claim 6, however, is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what “helmet” is being referenced when Claim 3 is explicitly drawn to a helmet system. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claim 6 depends from the helmet system instead of the helmet.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites dependency upon “the helmet” of Claim 3. Claim 7, however, is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what “helmet” is being referenced when Claim 3 is explicitly drawn to a helmet system. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claim 7 depends from the helmet system instead of the helmet.
Claims 8-9 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.
Claim 8 recites dependency upon “the helmet” of Claim 1. Claim 8, however, is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what “helmet” is being referenced when Claim 1 is explicitly drawn to a helmet system. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claim 8 depends from the helmet system instead of the helmet.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites dependency upon “the helmet” of Claim 8. Claim 9, however, is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what “helmet” is being referenced when Claim 8 is assumed to be drawn to a helmet system (see the aforementioned rejection of Claim 8). For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claim 9 depends from the helmet system instead of the helmet.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites dependency upon “the helmet” of Claim 1. Claim 10, however, is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what “helmet” is being referenced when Claim 1 is explicitly drawn to a helmet system. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claim 10 depends from the helmet system instead of the helmet.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation (emphasis added) "magnetically biasing the battery into the slot." There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the slot” in the claim. Given that “battery receiving slot” is referenced both before and after “the slot,” it will be assumed that “the slot” is in reference to said “battery receiving slot.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the helmet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 20 references a helmet system, helmet-mounted electronic devices, and a helmet shell, but it does not reference “a helmet”).
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie (CN 112564217, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 11, Xie teaches a smart wearable device (i.e. smart ring, smart bracelet, smart watch, etc.) (“wearable device”) (Abstract, [0027]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Xie teaches that the device comprises a wearable body (20) (“battery interface apparatus”) that is configured to interface with a corresponding battery assembly (50) (“first battery”) ([0026]). As illustrated in Figures 2-3 (and the annotated Figures 2-3 below), wearable body comprises a “first base” comprising a “first battery internal side support surface,” a “first battery front support surface,” a plurality of conductive terminals (24) (“first electrical connection interface”) configured to electrically connect to the battery assembly, wherein the first battery internal side support surface and the first battery front support surface define a receiving groove (210) (“first battery receiving slot”) into which the battery assembly is detachably received (e.g. the battery assembly is detached from the receiving groove when it needs to be charged), a “mechanical latch feature” configured to interface with a snap-flit block (510) (“complementary mechanical feature”) of the battery assembly to contribute to a releasable maintenance of the battery assembly within the receiving groove (as previously described, the battery assembly is detachably received in the receiving groove, and is detached, for example, when it needs to be charged), and a “magnetic latch feature” configured to interface, via a magnetic bias, with a magnetic cover plate (55) (“complementary magnetic feature”) of the battery assembly to contribute to the releasable maintenance of the battery assembly within the receiving groove (as previously described, the battery assembly is detachably received in the receiving groove, and is detached, for example, when it needs to be charged) ([0026], [0028], [0034], [0037], [0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
733
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Xie teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figures 2-3 (See Claim 11), the mechanical latch feature physically engages the battery assembly on an “external side” of the battery assembly that is an opposite side of the battery assembly to an “internal side” of the battery assembly that is adjacent the first battery internal side support surface (i.e. “adjacent” insofar as said internal side may be interpreted as being both next to and near the first battery internal side support surface), and the magnetic latch feature applies a magnetic force from the first battery front support surface to a “front surface” of the battery assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are allowed (and Claims 5-10, 20, would be allowed assuming all relevant rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as previously described, are overcome).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 1, which is drawn specifically to a helmet system, requires that the battery interface (which itself comprises the claimed base, mechanical latch feature, and magnetic latch feature) is disposed on an exterior of a rear portion of a helmet shell, wherein the helmet shell comprises a front portion configured to be positioned adjacent to a forehead of a head of a user and the rear portion configured to be positioned adjacent to a back of the head of the user.
Furthermore, Independent Claim 20, which is drawn specifically to a method for operating a helmet system for powering helmet-mounted electronic devices, requires that the battery interface (which itself comprises the claimed base, battery receiving slot, mechanical latch feature, and magnetic latch feature) is disposed on an exterior of a rear portion of a helmet shell.
The closest prior art references relevant to at least independent Claims 1 and 20 are Franzino et al. (WO 2022115531, using the equivalent US 2024/008581 for citation purposes), Redpath et al. (US 2014/0189938), and Celona et al. (US 2011/0239354).
Franzino teaches a helmet accessory mounting system including a mounting device configured to couple to an outer surface of a side of a helmet (Abstract). As illustrated in at least Figures 1A-1C, Franzino teaches that the system includes a battery pack (28) attached to a rear portion of the helmet ([0061]).
Redpath teaches a helmet comprising a battery attached thereto (Abstract). As illustrated in at least Figures 1-4, Redpath teaches that the helmet comprises a battery (10) attached to a rear portion of a helmet (1), wherein the battery is attached to the helmet via mechanical features (i.e. tabs (35) and a mechanical engaging member (2) on the battery, and corresponding slots (25) and an engaging member (20) on the helmet) ([0035]).
Celona teaches a helmet mounting system (Abstract). As illustrated in at least Figures 1, 22-23, Celona teaches that the helmet mounting system comprises a battery pack (440) attached to a rear portion of a helmet (508), wherein the battery pack is attached to a rear portion of the helmet via mechanical features (i.e. tabs 410a and 410b ([0025], [0054]).
However, while said prior art references each disclose a manner of attaching a battery to a helmet, said prior art references, alone or in combination, neither teach nor suggest a helmet system having a battery interface structured in the manner disclosed in independent Claim 1, or a method for operating a helmet system comprising a battery interface structured in the manner disclosed in independent Claim 20. Furthermore, Xie does not cure the deficiencies of the aforementioned prior art references, especially because Xie is directed to a fundamentally different type of wearable device (e.g. smart ring, smart bracelet, smart watch) whose physical and electrical connection features are not readily applicable to the helmet systems disclosed in said prior art references.
Claims 13-19 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.
Claim 13 (wherein Claims 14-17 ultimately depend from Claim 13) further limits the battery interface apparatus of Claim 11 by requiring the presence of a lever arm that is coupled to the mechanical latch feature, wherein the lever arm is configured to pivot in the instantly claimed manner.
Although Xie teaches a mechanical latch feature, Xie neither teaches nor suggests that a lever arm is further coupled to said feature, let alone a lever arm explicitly configured to pivot in the instantly claimed manner.
Claim 18 (wherein Claim 19 depends from Claim 18) further limits the battery interface apparatus of Claim 11 by requiring the presence of a second base disposed adjacent to a rear portion of a helmet shell, wherein the second base comprises the instantly claimed surfaces the define the instantly claimed slot, wherein the claimed slots extend in respective longitudinal directions in the instantly claimed manner.
Although Xie teaches a first base, Xie neither teaches nor suggests a second base structured in the instantly claimed manner. Furthermore, Xie does not teach that the wearable device has anything to do with a helmet shell insofar as Xie is directed to a fundamentally different type of wearable device (e.g. smart ring, smart bracelet, smart watch).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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 W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728