Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/26/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 26, 27, 29-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imler et al. (US 7,252,112 B1).
Regarding claim 26, Imler discloses a magnetic quick connect, the magnetic quick connect comprising: a use-side coupling member (14’) having a first mating end, a first magnetic material (82) disposed adjacent to the first mating end, the use-side coupling member having an interior wall defining a first fluid communication path (portion of 110 within 14’); a delivery-side coupling member (12’) having a second mating end and a second magnetic material (84) disposed adjacent to the second mating end, the delivery-side coupling member having an interior wall defining a second fluid communication path (portion of 110 within 12’); a first inner member (142) attached (via 143) to the interior wall of the use-side coupling member, the first inner member defining a first internal communication path (portion of 105 within 14’) extending within the first fluid communication path (see Figure 4); and a second inner member (114) attached (via 116) to the interior wall of the delivery-side coupling member, the second inner member defining a second internal communication path (portion of 105 within 12’) extending within the second fluid communication path (see Figure 4); wherein in a coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members are detachably held together by an attractive force between the first and second magnetic materials such that the first and second internal communication paths are held in fluid communication.
Regarding the functional preamble limitation “for a fluid delivery system of a vented helmet”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Imler currently discloses every piece of structure as currently claimed and is capable of performing the functionally intended use.
Regarding claim 27, Imler discloses the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26, wherein in the coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members provide a substantially gas-tight communication path to communicate gas through the magnetic quick connect, and wherein the communicated gas comprises air (see Figure 4 where path 105 is intended for vapor and is shown to be fluid tight through the use of various O-rings).
Regarding claim 29, Imler discloses the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26, wherein in the coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members provide a substantially liquid-tight communication path to communicate liquid through the first and second internal communication paths of the magnetic quick connect (see Figure 4 where path 105 is intended for vapor and is thus capable of transporting liquid and is shown to be fluid tight through the use of various O-rings).
Regarding claim 30, Imler discloses the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26 wherein at least a portion of the first internal communication path (105) of the first inner member (142) extends coaxially within the first fluid communication path (110) of the use-side coupling member (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 31, Imler discloses a magnetic quick connect according to claim 26 wherein at least a portion of the second internal communication path (105) of the second inner member (114) extends coaxially within the second fluid communication path (110) of the delivery-side coupling member (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 34, Imler discloses the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26, wherein the use-side coupling member (14’) is removably connectable (via threads 38) to an input tube of a vented helmet interface (neither the input tube nor the vented helmet currently being claimed in combination due to the use of the functional limitation “removably connectable”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 26, 27, 29-31, 34-37, 39-41, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (US 6,973,676 B1) in view of Doherty et al. (US 8,770,190 B2), Guest (GB 2261042 A), and Sundahl (US 4,549,541 A).
Regarding claim 26, Simpson discloses quick connect for a fluid (air, see col. 4 lines 31-37) delivery system of a vented helmet (10, helmet not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the quick connect comprising: a use-side coupling member (44) having a first mating end and an interior wall defining a first fluid communication path and a delivery-side coupling member having a second mating end and an interior wall defining a second fluid communication path (see “external air source” in col. 4 lines 31-32 which would inherently have the mating end and interior wall).
Simpson fails to disclose a first magnetic material disposed adjacent to the first mating end; a second magnetic material disposed adjacent to the second mating end; a first inner member attached to the interior wall of the use-side coupling member, the first inner member defining a first internal communication path extending within the first fluid communication path; and a second inner member attached to the interior wall of the delivery-side coupling member, the second inner member defining a second internal communication path extending within the second fluid communication path; wherein in a coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members are detachably held together by an attractive force between the first and second magnetic materials such that the first and second internal communication paths are held in fluid communication.
Regarding the magnetic connection, Doherty teaches that it was already known in the art for a use-side coupling member (42) and a delivery-side coupling member (40) to be connected in fluid communication using magnetic material (46) at the mating ends of each (see Figures 2a and 2b and col. 5 lines 28-56 or Figures 7a-7c and col. 6 line 60 - col. 7 line 34) so that a strong enough force applied to the fluid delivery system would release the magnetic connection and protect the user (see col. 17 lines 50-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the use-side to delivery-side connection of Simpson with a magnetic connection like that of Doherty, the motivation being to protect the user’s head and neck from forces applied downline in the fluid delivery system.
Regarding the first and second inner members being attached to the interior walls of the use-side and delivery-side coupling members and defining an internal communication path, Guest teaches that it was already known in the art for a fluid delivery system to utilize coaxial tubes where first and second inner members (12 and 18) are attached (via 13) to the interior walls of use-side and delivery-side coupling members (10 and 17) in order to provide separate flow paths (see page 6 lines 32-35). Sundahl teaches that it was already known for a helmet fluid delivery system like that of Simpson to run a water line (40) within an air line (33) into the helmet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the Simpson use-side and delivery-side coupling members with first and second inner members attached to the interior walls thereof in the manner taught by Guest, the motivation being to provide a second flow path for water within the air line, as taught by Sundahl. The proposed modification is nothing more than a combination of known prior art elements according to their established functions in order to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 27, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26, wherein in the coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members provide a substantially gas-tight communication path to communicate gas through the magnetic quick connect, as taught by Doherty (see col. 5 lines 54-55), and wherein the communicated gas comprises air, as originally taught by Simpson.
Regarding claim 29, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26, wherein in the coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members provide a substantially liquid-tight communication path to communicate liquid through the first and second internal communication paths of the magnetic quick connect, as taught by Guest (see page 6 lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 30, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26 wherein at least a portion of the first internal communication path of the first inner member extends coaxially within the first fluid communication path of the use-side coupling member, as taught by Guest.
Regarding claim 31, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26 wherein at least a portion of the second internal communication path of the second inner member extends coaxially within the second fluid communication path of the delivery-side coupling member, as taught by Guest.
Regarding claim 34, Examiner has thus far envisioned the combination such that element 44 of Simpson is being equated to element 42 of Doherty and element 10 of Guest. The combination could also be envisioned such that a use-side coupling member like element 42 of Doherty or element 10 of Guest is attached to element 44 of Simpson. In this second case, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26, wherein the use-side coupling member, as collectively taught by Doherty and Guest, is removably connectable to an input tube (44) of a vented helmet interface (neither the input tube nor the vented helmet currently being claimed in combination due to the use of the functional limitation “removably connectable”).
Regarding claim 35, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 26, wherein Simpson discloses the use-side coupling member (44) is integrally formed with a vented helmet interface (see col. 4 lines 12-13, helmet now being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “is integrally formed with”).
Regarding claim 36, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect for a fluid delivery system of a vented helmet (helmet not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the magnetic quick connect comprising: a use-side coupling member having a first mating end, as taught by Simpson, and a first magnetic material disposed adjacent to the first mating end, as taught by Doherty, the use-side coupling member having an interior wall defining a first fluid communication path, as taught by Simpson; and a delivery-side coupling member having a second mating end, as taught by Simpson, and a second magnetic material disposed adjacent to the second mating end, as taught by Doherty, the delivery-side coupling member having an interior wall defining a second fluid communication path, as taught by Simpson; a first inner member attached to the interior wall of the use-side coupling member, the first inner member defining a first internal communication path extending within the first fluid communication path, as taught by Guest; and a second inner member attached to the interior wall of the delivery-side coupling member, the second inner member defining a second internal communication path extending within the second fluid communication path, as taught by Guest; wherein in a coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members are detachably held together by an attractive force between the first and second magnetic materials such that the first and second internal communication paths are held in fluid communication, as collectively taught by Doherty and Guest; wherein the use-side and delivery-side coupling members may also be decoupled by pivoting one of the use-side and delivery-side coupling members relative to another of the use-side and delivery-side coupling members through the application of an off-axis force, as taught by Doherty (inherent in the design shown in Doherty Figures 2a-2b and explicitly shown in Doherty Figure 7c).
Regarding claim 37, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 36, wherein in the coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members provide a substantially gas-tight communication path to communicate gas through the magnetic quick connect, as taught by Doherty (see col. 5 lines 54-55), and wherein the communicated gas comprises air, as originally taught by Simpson.
Regarding claim 39, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 36, wherein in the coupled configuration, the use-side and delivery-side coupling members provide a substantially liquid-tight communication path to communicate liquid through the first and second internal communication paths of the magnetic quick connect, as taught by Guest (see page 6 lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 40, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 36 wherein at least a portion of the first internal communication path of the first inner member extends coaxially within the first fluid communication path of the use-side coupling member, as taught by Guest.
Regarding claim 41, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 36 wherein at least a portion of the second internal communication path of the second inner member extends coaxially within the second fluid communication path of the delivery-side coupling member, as taught by Guest.
Regarding claim 44, Examiner has thus far envisioned the combination such that element 44 of Simpson is being equated to element 42 of Doherty and element 10 of Guest. The combination could also be envisioned such that a use-side coupling member like element 42 of Doherty or element 10 of Guest is attached to element 44 of Simpson. In this second case, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 36, wherein the use-side coupling member, as collectively taught by Doherty and Guest, is removably connectable to an input tube (44) of a vented helmet interface (neither the input tube nor the vented helmet currently being claimed in combination due to the use of the functional limitation “removably connectable”).
Regarding claim 45, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claim 36, wherein Simpson discloses the use-side coupling member (44) is integrally formed with a vented helmet interface (see col. 4 lines 12-13, helmet now being claimed in combination due to the positive structural recitation “is integrally formed with”).
8. Claims 32, 33, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (US 6,973,676 B1) in view of Doherty et al. (US 8,770,190 B2), Guest (GB 2261042 A), and Sundahl (US 4,549,541 A) as applied above, further in view of Betz (US 6,682,102 B1).
Regarding claims 32, 33, 42, and 43, Simpson as modified above would include the magnetic quick connect according to claims 26 and 36 but so far fails to include wherein one of the first and second inner members includes a tapered protrusion, and wherein the other of the first and second inner members includes a tapered recess adapted to receive the tapered protrusion. Guest, whose first and second inner members have been added to the modified Simpson quick connect, teaches the male member being smaller (at 27) than the female to engage the two but fails to show a taper. Betz shows that a tapered shape was already known to be suitable for use in the male and female portions of an inner coaxial tube (see Figure 3 proximate 26 and 28). Similarly, Doherty teaches that such male to female tube engagement may include either a smaller size or a taper (see col. 7 lines 13-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the smaller diameter connection shown by Guest with a tapered shape, where such shape was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Betz, and where such substitution of connection shapes/designs was already known to be suitable for such use, as taught by Doherty.
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
10. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
11. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
12. Claims 26, 27, 29-31, 34-37, 39-41, 44, and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,154,734.
Regarding claim 26, see patented claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, see patented claim 1 which is for a gas, which would include air.
Regarding claim 29, see patented claims 1, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 30, see patented claim 2.
Regarding claim 31, see patented claim 3.
Regarding claim 34, see patented claim 1.
Regarding claim 35, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for the coupling member being integrally formed with the helmet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have formed the coupling member integral with the helmet, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 36, see patented claim 1. The patented claim does not explicitly recite the magnetic connection being capable of separating due to an off-axis force as presently claimed, however, the patented claims also recite no structure that would prohibit such separation. The patented claims essentially recite abutting magnets, which would certainly be separable by application of an off axis force.
Regarding claim 37, see patented claim 1 which is for a gas, which would include air.
Regarding claim 39, see patented claims 1, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 40, see patented claim 2.
Regarding claim 41, see patented claim 3.
Regarding claim 44, see patented claim 1.
Regarding claim 45, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for the coupling member being integrally formed with the helmet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have formed the coupling member integral with the helmet, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
13. Claims 32, 33, 42, and 43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,154,734 in view of Betz (US 6,682,102 B1).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, the patented claims recite all of the structure of the magnetic quick connect according to claims 26 and 36 but fail to recite wherein one of the first and second inner members includes a tapered protrusion, and wherein the other of the first and second inner members includes a tapered recess adapted to receive the tapered protrusion. Betz shows that a tapered shape was already known to be suitable for use in the male and female portions of an inner coaxial tube (see Figure 3 proximate 26 and 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the connection of the first and second inner members of the patented claims with a tapered shape, where such shape was already known to be suitable for such use, as shown by Betz.
14. Claims 26, 27, 29-37, and 39-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 11,717,709.
Regarding claim 26, see patented claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, the patented claims are to a fluid delivery system which would be capable of communicating air.
Regarding claim 29, see patented claim 5.
Regarding claim 30, see patented claim 2.
Regarding claim 31, see patented claim 3.
Regarding claim 32, see patented claim 4.
Regarding claim 33, see patented claim 4, where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have simply reversed the tapering of the parts. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 34, the helmet is not currently being claimed in combination and there is nothing in the connection of the patented claims that would prevent a user from choosing to attach the coupling to a helmet.
Regarding claim 36, see patented claim 1. The patented claim does not explicitly recite the magnetic connection being capable of separating due to an off-axis force as presently claimed, however, the patented claims also recite no structure that would prohibit such separation. The patented claims essentially recite abutting magnets, which would certainly be separable by application of an off axis force.
Regarding claim 37, the patented claims are to a fluid delivery system which would be capable of communicating air.
Regarding claim 39, see patented claim 5.
Regarding claim 40, see patented claim 2.
Regarding claim 41, see patented claim 3.
Regarding claim 42, see patented claim 4.
Regarding claim 43, see patented claim 4, where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have simply reversed the tapering of the parts. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 44, the helmet is not currently being claimed in combination and there is nothing in the connection of the patented claims that would prevent a user from choosing to attach the coupling to a helmet.
15. Claims 35 and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 11,717,709 in view of Simpson (US 6,973,676 B1).
Regarding claims 35 and 45, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for wherein the use-side coupling member is integrally formed with a vented helmet interface. Simpson teaches that it was already known in the art for a use-side coupling member (44) of a gas delivery system like that of the patented claims to be integrally formed with a helmet (12, see col. 4 lines 12-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have integrally formed the use-side coupling member of the patented claims with a helmet in the manner taught by Simpson, the motivation being to provide a user of the helmet with a breakaway connection for safety.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments filed 2/26/26 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached on (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 4/1/26