DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/132,944 filed on June 4, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 35-54 are still pending, with claims 35-54 being newly added. Claims 1-34 are cancelled.
Status of Objections and Non-Prior Art Rejections
I. 35 USC § 112 Rejections
Applicant has cancelled claims 27-29. The 112(b) rejections of claims 27-29 are therefore moot.
Response to Arguments
On page 14 of the remarks filed June 4, 2026, Applicant argues:
Soto does not disclose or suggest at least the direct conductive engagement recited in independent claims 35 and 42. Rather, Soto discloses a lighting system electrically coupled to a power unit by a cord. Soto therefore does not disclose an electronic device removably attached to an accessory interface and conductively connected to a battery pack by direct conductive engagement between the electronic device and the accessory interface, as recited in claim 35. Soto also does not disclose direct conductive engagement between the electronic device and contacts of the accessory interface when the electronic device is removably attached to the accessory interface, as recited in claim 42.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the updated rejections below, the electronic device is coupled via a wire, which is a conductor to the battery pack, thus direct conductive engagement, as opposed to wireless engagement (inductive power transfer).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 35-54 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current 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 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.
Claims 35-37 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soto et al. US PGPUB 2011/0170280.
Regarding claim 35, Soto discloses a helmet [fig. 1, 10; pars. 20-21] comprising:
at least one battery pack attached to the helmet [fig. 1, battery 14; par. 22; figs. 5-6, battery 140], the battery pack including at least one power source [par. 47-48 & 52-53; battery pack];
an accessory interface positioned on an exterior side of the helmet [fig. 1 & 5-6; shroud plate 12; par. 50], the accessory interface being conductively connected to the at least one battery pack [pars. 47, 49-50 & 54; the shroud 12 connects the lighting 120 to the battery pack 140 via the cord 132]; and
an electronic device removably attached to the accessory interface [fig. 5-6; par. 43 & 48; the lighting system 120 is removably coupled to the plate 12];
wherein the electronic device is conductively connected to the at least one battery pack by direct conductive engagement between the electronic device and the accessory interface when the electronic device is removably attached to the accessory interface [figs. 5-6; pars. 47-50 & 54; when the lighting system 120 is connected to the shroud plate 12, the lighting system 120 is connected to the battery pack by direct conductive engagement (the cord 132) which passes between the support plate to the accessory interface (thus, “connected to the at least one battery pack by direct conductive engagement between the electronic device and the accessory interface”); par. 43 & 48; the lighting system 120 is removably coupled to the plate 12].
Regarding claim 36, Soto discloses further comprising a battery pack selector assembly configured to turn the electronic device ON and OFF [pars. 7, 40 & 46; a switch turns the lighting system on and off (thus selects and deselects the battery pack)].
Regarding claim 37, Soto discloses wherein the electronic device is a flashlight [par. 34; the LEDs and light passages form a flashlight].
Regarding claim 42, Soto discloses a helmet [fig. 1, 10; pars. 20-21] comprising:
at least one battery pack attached to the helmet [fig. 1, battery 14; par. 22; figs. 5-6, battery 140], the battery pack including at least one power source [par. 47-48 & 52-53; battery pack];
an accessory interface positioned on an exterior side of the helmet [fig. 1 & 5-6; shroud plate 12; par. 50], the accessory interface including contacts conductively connected to the at least one battery pack [pars. 47, 49-50 & 54; the shroud 12 connects the lighting 120 to the battery pack 140 via the cord 132, thus the cord has contacts];
an electronic device removably attached to the accessory interface [fig. 5-6; par. 43 & 48; the lighting system 120 is removably coupled to the plate 12];
wherein the electronic device is conductively connected to the at least one battery pack by direct conductive engagement between the electronic device and the contacts of the accessory interface when the electronic device is removably attached to the accessory interface [figs. 5-6; pars. 47-50 & 54; when the lighting system 120 is connected to the shroud plate 12, the lighting system 120 is connected to the battery pack by direct conductive engagement (the cord 132) which passes between the support plate to the accessory interface (thus, “connected to the at least one battery pack by direct conductive engagement between the electronic device and the accessory interface”); par. 43 & 48; the lighting system 120 is removably coupled to the plate 12].
Regarding claim 43, Soto discloses further comprising a battery pack selector assembly configured to turn the electronic device ON and OFF [pars. 7, 40 & 46; a switch turns the lighting system on and off (thus selects and deselects the battery pack)].
Regarding claim 44, Soto discloses wherein the electronic device is a flashlight [par. 34; the LEDs and light passages form a flashlight].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 38-39 & 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto et al. US PGPUB 2011/0170280 in view of Lombard US PGPUB 2016/0360817.
Regarding claim 38, Soto does not explicitly disclose further comprising a wireless communication module operably connected to the electronic device, the wireless communication module is configured to facilitate changes to the operation parameters of the electronic device.
However, Lombard discloses a helmet with electronic accessories which further comprises a wireless communication module operably connected to the electronic device, the wireless communication module is configured to facilitate changes to the operation parameters of the electronic device [par. 60; the helmet has a communication system which can communicate with external devices for controlling the helmet (thus facilitating changes to operation parameters of the helmet].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include a wireless communication module operably connected to the electronic device, the wireless communication module is configured to facilitate changes to the operation parameters of the electronic device for the purpose of allowing external devices to control the helmet, as taught by Lombard (par. 60).
Regarding claim 39, Soto does not explicitly disclose further comprising an umbrella light conductively connected to the at least one battery pack.
However, Lombard discloses a helmet with electronic accessories which further comprises an umbrella light conductively connected to the at least one battery pack [par. 59; fig. 1-2; LED lights 12 and 14 are included on the forward/upper portion of helmet which illuminate the wearer and the environment around them].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include the light is an umbrella light, the housing is configured to focus light generated by the light source upwardly for the purpose of illuminating the wearer and the environment around them, as taught by Lombard (par. 6, 59-60 & 113).
Regarding claim 45, Soto does not explicitly disclose further comprising a wireless communication module operably connected to the electronic device, the wireless communication module being configured to facilitate changes to the operation parameters of the electronic device.
However, Lombard discloses a helmet with electronic accessories which further comprises a wireless communication module operably connected to the electronic device, the wireless communication module being configured to facilitate changes to the operation parameters of the electronic device [par. 60; the helmet has a communication system which can communicate with external devices for controlling the helmet (thus facilitating changes to operation parameters of the helmet].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include a wireless communication module operably connected to the electronic device, the wireless communication module being configured to facilitate changes to the operation parameters of the electronic device for the purpose of allowing external devices to control the helmet, as taught by Lombard (par. 60).
Regarding claim 46, Soto does not explicitly disclose further comprising an umbrella light conductively connected to the at least one battery pack.
However, Lombard discloses a helmet with electronic accessories which further comprises an umbrella light conductively connected to the at least one battery pack [par. 59; fig. 1-2; LED lights 12 and 14 are included on the forward/upper portion of helmet which illuminate the wearer and the environment around them].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include the light is an umbrella light, the housing is configured to focus light generated by the light source upwardly for the purpose of illuminating the wearer and the environment around them, as taught by Lombard (par. 6, 59-60 & 113).
Claims 40-41 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto et al. US PGPUB 2011/0170280 in view of Teetzel et al. US PGPUB 2007/0214551.
Regarding claim 40, Soto discloses wherein the at least one battery pack comprises a first battery pack t [fig. 1, battery pack 14; par. 22].
Soto does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery pack further comprises a second battery pack attached to the helmet.
However, Teetzel discloses a helmet with electronic accessories wherein a second battery pack attached to the helmet wherein the second battery pack includes at least one power source [par. 65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include wherein the battery pack further comprises a second battery pack attached to the helmet for the purpose of providing longer battery life, as taught by Teetzel (par. 65).
Regarding claim 41, Soto does not explicitly disclose further comprising a battery pack selector assembly configured to selectively conductively connect the electronic device to the first battery pack, the second battery pack, or both the first battery pack and the second battery pack.
However, Admitted Prior Art discloses that it is well known in the battery discharging arts to allow a user to select one or another battery pack via a selector switch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include a battery pack selector assembly configured to selectively conductively connect the electronic device to the first battery pack, the second battery pack, or both the first battery pack and the second battery pack for the purpose of allowing the user to select the battery that has more useful life left, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
NB: Examiner took Official Notice with respect to the above limitation of claim 41 (as it was previously recited in now-canceled claim 31) in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 5, 2026. Applicant did not traverse or did not adequately traverse. Thus, the limitation is being treated as taught by admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claim 47, Soto does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one battery pack comprises a first battery pack and a second battery pack attached to the helmet.
However, Teetzel discloses a helmet with electronic accessories wherein the at least one battery pack comprises a first battery pack and a second battery pack attached to the helmet [par. 65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include wherein the at least one battery pack comprises a first battery pack and a second battery pack attached to the helmet for the purpose of providing longer battery life, as taught by Teetzel (par. 65).
Regarding claim 48, Soto does not explicitly disclose further comprising a battery pack selector assembly configured to selectively conductively connect the electronic device to the first battery pack, the second battery pack, or both the first battery pack and the second battery pack.
However, Admitted Prior Art discloses that it is well known in the battery discharging arts to allow a user to select one or another battery pack via a selector switch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include a battery pack selector assembly configured to selectively conductively connect the electronic device to the first battery pack, the second battery pack, or both the first battery pack and the second battery pack for the purpose of allowing the user to select the battery that has more useful life left, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
NB: Examiner took Official Notice with respect to the above limitation of claim 41 (as it was previously recited in now-canceled claim 31) in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 5, 2026. Applicant did not traverse or did not adequately traverse. Thus, the limitation is being treated as taught by admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claims 49-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto et al. US PGPUB 2011/0170280 in view of Teetzel et al. US PGPUB 2007/0214551 and further in view of Moore et al. US PGPUB 2021/0247618.
Regarding claim 49, Soto discloses a helmet [fig. 1, 10; pars. 20-21] comprising: at least one battery pack attached to the helmet [fig. 1, battery 14; par. 22; figs. 5-6, battery 140], the battery pack including at least one power source [par. 47-48 & 52-53; battery pack]; and
an indicator array [pars. 34 & 45; the LEDs 30 are an array and can be used to signal information, thus an indicator array] conductively connected to the at least one battery pack [pars. 47, 49-50 & 54; the shroud 12 connects the lighting 120 to the battery pack 140 via the cord 132], the indicator array comprising a housing and at least one light source [par. 34; the lighting system comprises a plurality of LEDs, a light housing and light passages to focus the light].
Soto does not explicitly disclose the housing extending below a front lip of the helmet such that the at least one light source is visible to a user wearing the helmet, and the at least one light source configured to indicate at least one of a remaining capacity of the at least one battery pack and an operational status of an electronic device conductively connected to the at least one battery pack.
However, Teetzel discloses a helmet with electronic accessories wherein the housing extends below a front lip of the helmet such that the at least one light source is visible to a user wearing the helmet [figs. 1 & 9; a light source (heads-up display or night vision) 116 extends below the front lip of the hat and is visible to the user (usable through their eyes); pars. 36-37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soto to further include the housing extends below a front lip of the helmet such that the at least one light source is visible to a user wearing the helmet for the purpose of allowing the user to use optics like night-vision or a heads-up display, as taught by Teetzel (pars. 36-37).
The combination of Soto and Teetzel does not explicitly disclose the at least one light source configured to indicate at least one of a remaining capacity of the at least one battery pack and an operational status of an electronic device conductively connected to the at least one battery pack.
However, Moore discloses a helmet with a display system wherein the at least one light source configured to indicate at least one of a remaining capacity of the at least one battery pack and an operational status of an electronic device conductively connected to the at least one battery pack [fig. 1; par. 211; the display 4020 has an option to display the state of charge of the battery].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Soto and Teetzel to further include the at least one light source configured to indicate at least one of a remaining capacity of the at least one battery pack and an operational status of an electronic device conductively connected to the at least one battery pack for the purpose of informing the user of a state of charge, as taught by Moore (par. 211).
Regarding claim 50, Soto discloses wherein the indicator array comprises three light sources [par. 34].
Regarding claim 51, Soto does not explicitly disclose the at least one light source is configured to indicate the remaining capacity of the at least one battery pack.
However, Moore as applied in claim 49 discloses the at least one light source is configured to indicate the remaining capacity of the at least one battery pack [par. 211].
Regarding claim 52, Soto does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one light source is configured to indicate the operational status of the electronic device conductively connected to the at least one battery pack.
However, Moore as applied in claim 49 discloses the at least one light source is configured to indicate the operational status of the electronic device conductively connected to the at least one battery pack [par. 180, brightness or screen resolution (operation status) can be displayed].
Regarding claim 53, Soto discloses wherein the operational status comprises whether the electronic device is ON or OFF [par. 180; if the brightness or resolution is being adjusted then the device is ON].
Regarding claim 54, Soto discloses wherein the at least one light source comprises at least one light-emitting diode [par. 34].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights