DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 3 are amended.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 23, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 3 have been amended, claim 4 has been cancelled, and claims 16 and 17 have been added. Thus, claims 1-3, and 5-17 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the drawing objection.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §112(a) rejections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §112(b) rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Silverman is Non-Analogous Art and the stated motivation reflects impermissible hindsight.
The examiner disagrees. Initially, Applicant argues that one would not look to a musical instrument to address a helmet harness system for tactical/ballistic applications. The examiner, however, does not utilize the “same field of endeavor” prong of “analogous art” but rather refers to the “reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor” prong of analogous art. Applicant’s argument that a musical instrument is non-analogous based solely on the same field of endeavor fails to address the reasonably pertinent to the problem prong of the analysis and is therefore unpersuasive.
Next Applicant recites that taking the advantage from Silverman is “classic hindsight reasoning”. This is merely attorney argument. That the Examiner takes the motivation from the secondary reference suggests that the motivation is not hindsight, but rather from a teaching, suggestion, or motivation found in the prior art (See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Next, Applicant argues that Rogers emphasizes security over quick-release. Nothing in Silverman indicates that such a connection is not secure. Furthermore, Rogers does not disparage a quick-release.
Applicant argues that the rejection relies on unsupported logical leaps without articulated reasoning.
Initially, Applicant argues that there is no attachment mechanism to modify. The examiner disagrees. As clearly laid out in the Final Rejection, the examiner modifies the first fastening member and the second fastening member (screw, para. 0110) to include the quick release components. That Rogers does not explicitly state that the screw is set into a female portion is immaterial as in order for the screw to have any fastening purpose it must be inserted into a female portion.
Applicant next alleges that there is a “leap 1” because Rogers fails to disclose any specific structure.
Initially, the Examiner in the rejection has not utilized the mounting features 24, 26, 28, so the argument regarding these features is irrelevant. However, the Examiner could of course modify these mounting features to include the female portion of a quick release mechanism. Applicant argues that because Rogers is silent as to how the mounting features are attached that they cannot be modified. The Examiner asserts that this provides more reason as to why they could be modified. Applicant admits that Rogers is silent as to whether the attachment uses fasteners, clips, adhesive, etc. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that it must be attached by some mechanism. Rogers is ripe for modification for this very reason as clearly the attachment of the helmet of Rogers would not work if there was no attachment at all. The use of Silverman solves this issue. Applicant’s assertion that the absence of a specified attachment precludes the modification of the system of Rogers is again merely attorney argument.
Next Applicant alleges that there is a “leap 2” from unspecified attachment to chambered receptacles with shoulders.
Applicant alleges that the Examiner provides no explanation as to why someone would arrive at the specific chambered receptacle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner provides an explicit reasoning from Silverman as to why someone would look for a quick release mechanism, which at least provides that there are no loose parts during the attachment and detachment (see Final Rejection, p. 6).
Finally, Applicant alleges that there is a final “leap 3” from unspecified helmet attachment to integrated ball bearing mechanism.
Applicant alleges that the Examiner has not provided “how” to modify the helmet of Rogers and why someone would modify the helmet to include such features. Initially, the helmet is not positively claimed. The claim is for a harness system, not a harness and helmet. Thus, the structure of the helmet is not relevant. Furthermore, modifying a helmet to include quick release components is indeed predictable. Quick release mechanisms are utilized in helmets (see, e.g. Martin (US 3889296), Vitaloni (US 4689836), Bancroft (US 20150230533)). One having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to mount the male side on the helmet, and the female side on the harness. The level of ordinary skill be obtained via the prior art cited which includes other quick release attachment for helmets (see Tom et al. (US 20140090156) as well as Rogers et al. (US 20210153594) which include multiple components attached via various mechanisms under certain complexities. The examiner submits that a person understanding and creating these publications would understand how to apply the quick connect structure of Silverman to a helmet and harness attachment. Applicant has provided no support for the allegation that it is not predictable.
Applicant alleges that the logical leaps demonstrate gaps in the prima facie case. The examiner disagrees. The examiner has provided reasoning as to why one would be motivated to include the structure of Silverman with the helmet and harness of Rogers. The Examiner has also provided that such a feature would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Next Applicant alleges that that the limitation of Claim 12 has not been addressed. The examiner disagrees. Claim 12 is explicitly addressed in full and particularly that the helmet is not positively recited. Even if the helmet was positively recited, the modification provides that the male end extends through the wall of the helmet. Although there is no requirement in the claims as modified the component that is being attached, in this case the helmet, takes places of the component being attached in Silverman, the strap 22. As shown in Fig. 2 of Silverman the male portion clearly extends through the strap, now helmet, of Rogers.
Applicant alleges that claims 16 and 17 provide new features, but these features have already been rejected in different dependent claims and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
The Examiner has nevertheless updated the rejection although the Examiner maintains that Silverman is readily available and correctly applied as analogous prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 1-3, 5-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers et al. (US 20210153594) in view of Bologna et al. (US 20080250550).
Regarding claim 1, Rogers describes a detachable harness system (attachment platform 10), comprising:
a base plate (rigid plate 14); and
a first fastening member (support surfaces 24, 26, 29) disposed at the base plate, the first fastening member being configured to engage with a second fastening member (screw, para. 0110) of a first accessory (fully capable of engaging with a fastening member of a first accessory, the first accessory is not positively claimed, the system merely is required to be able to engage with the first accessory) wherein the first accessory comprises a helmet (is fully capable of engaging with a helmet, the helmet not being part of the “detachable harness system” could be any helmet with any shape or design), wherein the first fastening member comprises a female end (is a female end) of a fastener assembly, and wherein the second fastening member comprises a male end of the fastener assembly (screw, male end); and
wherein the male end extends from an interior surface of the helmet (the claim is for a detachable harness system, not a harness and helmet, whether an unclaimed helmet includes a male end extending is not claimed, the harness is fully capable of interacting with a male end of a fastening member from an unclaimed helmet or other component).
Rogers does not explicitly describe wherein the female end defines a shoulder; and
wherein the male end comprises ball bearings movable between a first position engaging the shoulder to retain the male end within the female end and a second position disengaged from the shoulder to release the male end from the female end (although the claim does not require a helmet, nor a male end, the first fastening member must be able to interact with the male end as claimed).
In related art for helmets and detachable and re-attachable systems pertinent to the problem of quickly attaching and detaching components, Bologna describes wherein the female end (washer 70) defines a shoulder (notch 77); and
wherein the male end (mechanism 35) comprises ball bearings (ball 54) movable between a first position engaging the shoulder to retain the male end within the female end (see Fig. 4) and a second position disengaged from the shoulder to release the male end from the female end (see Fig. 5, para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the attachment mechanism of Rogers to utilize the attachment system of Bologna instead in order to provide a faster and easy mechanism for removing the liner (see Bologna, para. 0005 describing using a screw can be difficult and time consuming).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
579
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, wherein the base plate is disposed at a front portion of the detachable harness system (is at a front).
Regarding claim 3, as modified Rogers describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, wherein the second fastening member comprises a quick detach bolt (is protrusion which is considered a quick detach bolt inasmuch as claimed), and the first fastening member comprises a cavity (is a cavity).
Regarding claim 4, Rogers describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, wherein the first accessory (this is not positively recited, and thus the harness need only be capable of connecting to a helmet which Rogers is able to do so) comprises a helmet (can be connected to a helmet shell, para. 0033), and wherein the male end extends from an interior surface of the helmet (the helmet is not positively recited, however the male end extends from the interior surface of the accessory, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, wherein the base plate further comprises a hook and loop fastener (25, hook and loop fastener, para. 0103) at a front portion of the detachable harness system, and wherein the hook and loop fastener is configured to engage the detachable harness system with a second accessory (configured to engage with any component that has a hook and loop attachment, for example, padding 12, para. 0103).
Regarding claim 6, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 5, wherein the second accessory comprises a night vision system that mounts to the detachable harness system via the hook and loop fastener (fully capable of attaching a component of an unclaimed and undescribed night vision system depending on the configuration of the night vision system).
Regarding claim 7, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 5, wherein the hook and loop fastener is disposed at the base plate (is on the base plate).
Regarding claim 8, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of cushion pads (cushion padding may be attached on the plates 14, including upper plate 14, para. 0103) disposed at a top portion of the detachable harness system (upper plate 14 is on the top portions of the harness), wherein the cushion pads are configured for direct contact with the user’s head (on side adjacent user’s skull, para. 0103).
Regarding claim 9, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, further comprising a chin strap (chin strap 72) fastened to the base plate by way of webbing (chin straps 71).
Regarding claim 10, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, further comprising a flexible headband (comfort padding material 12 located at front of the base plate) connected to the base plate.
Regarding claim 11, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, further comprising an adjustable knob (dial mechanism 76) configured to adjust a length of webbing (lace 78) of the detachable harness system.
Regarding claim 12, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 4, wherein the male end extends through a wall of the helmet (a helmet is not positively claimed, the male end, from Bologna, extends through the wall of the component, it is further noted that there is no requirement for a male end of a fastener assembly, only that the female end be configured to receive a male end, what the male end is attached to or extends through, is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 13, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, wherein the male end comprises a quick detach bolt (pin 60, Bologna) with a button (button portion 61, Bologna) configured to actuate movement of the ball bearings (54, Bologna) between the first position and the second position (permits the ball bearings to sit in the groove 63 or pressed outward through to notches 77, Bologna).
Regarding claim 14, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 5, wherein the second accessory comprises (the second accessory is never positively recited, further defining the structure of the second accessory does not further limit the claims) a battery pack configured to attach to the hook and loop fastener (fully capable of including a battery pack with hook and loop).
Regarding claim 15, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 1, further comprising a fastening mechanism (hook and loop fasteners, para. 0103) disposed at a back portion (rear rigid plate 14) of the detachable harness system, wherein the fastening mechanism comprises a hook and loop fastener (rigid plates 14 may include attachment features 25 which may be hook and loop, there is a rigid plate 14 at the rear of the harness).
Regarding claim 16, Rogers as modified describes the detachable harness system of claim 12, wherein the male end comprises (what the male end comprises is not positively claimed, because the male end is on an unclaimed first accessory) a quick detach bolt (60, Bologna) with a button (61, Bologna) configured to actuate movement of the ball bearings (54, Bologna) between the first position (Fig. 4, Bologna) and the second position (Fig. 5, Bologna).
Regarding claim 17, Rogers as modified describes detachable harness system of claim 12, wherein the base plate further comprises a hook and loop fastener (25, hook and loop fastener, para. 0103) at a front portion of the detachable harness system, and wherein the hook and loop fastener is configured to engage the detachable harness system with a night vision system (configured to engage with any component that has a hook and loop attachment, including a night vision system that includes hook and loop structures).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732