DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07-01-2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,039 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 38-39 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.
Claims 38-39 are rejected because they recite limitations “the rail defines an opening for receiving a buckle, the opening disposed between the dovetail slot and the bottom edge; a buckle comprising a deformable latch for releasably attaching the buckle to the opening; and the buckle includes a base for attaching a strap to the buckle, wherein the deformable latch is adapted to be depressed inwardly toward a surface of the helmet when the buckle is inserted into the opening”. It is not clear that the buckle structure is part of the claims or not since it is never positive claimed (i.e. the opening for receiving a buckle).
For the express purpose of an examination on the merits, this limitation is interpreted to be that the buckle structure has not belonged to the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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 (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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 26-29 and 38-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over H. K. Hartline et al. (2,649,019) in view of Richard (3,624,663).
Regarding claim 26, Hartline teaches a helmet assembly comprising: a helmet having a front and a back (fig 2);
a rail (member 27) mounted to an outer surface of the helmet, the rail having a dovetail slot (member 32) for attaching a component to the rail and a channel (member 31) enclosed therein, wherein the dovetail slot is for slidably receiving a component comprising a base (the angle area which makes the dovetail) having a profile for interfacing with the dovetail slot of the rail, the dovetail slot has a front end and the channel forms an outlet adjacent the front end (fig 2); and
a cord (member 25) having a first end fixed in the channel and extending from the rail to terminate in a second end in an extended position and detached from the accessory in a retracted position, wherein a portion of the cord is routed through the channel formed in the side rail such that the portion of the cord is retained within the channel and the outlet adjacent the front end of the dovetail (figs 2 and 7).
Hartline does not teach the cord includes at one end a hook attached to an accessory when the cord is in the extended position and the cord detached from the accessory when the cord is in the retracted position.
Richard teaches a helmet having a cord (fig 1, member 23) includes at one end a hook (fig 8, member 36) attached to an accessory when the cord is in the extended position and the cord detached from the accessory when the cord is in the retracted position (figs 1 and 8, col 2, lines 13-18 and 51-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the helmet of Hartline by using the detachable cord of Richard in order to detach and attach the assembly from the helmet when not needed.
Regarding claim 27, the modified helmet Hartline-Richard discloses the portion passes through the outlet and the outlet widens beyond a width of the channel to accommodate the portion of the cord (Hartline, fig 7).
Regarding claim 28, the modified helmet Hartline-Richard discloses a portion of the cord is routed within the widened outlet so as to remain recessed below the mounting surface of the rail and not obstruct attachment or removal of a component from the dovetail slot (Hartline, fig 7).
Regarding claim 29, the modified helmet Hartline-Richard discloses "the rail includes a channel and an outlet that from a recessed path to accommodate the portion of the cord (fig 7, the very front portion of the channel 25) such that the cord is disposed between the dovetail slot and a bottom edge of the helmet (fig 2).
to accommodate the cord such that the cord is recessed below the mounting surface of the rail and remains clear of the path used to attach or remove a component from the dovetail slot (figs 1-2).
Hartline does not teach the cord includes a hook for attaching to an accessory in an extended position and detached from the accessory in a retracted position. Richard teaches a helmet having a cord (fig 1, member 23) includes at one end a hook (fig 8, member 36) attached to an accessory when the cord is in the extended.
Regarding claims 38-39, Hartline teaches a helmet assembly comprising: a helmet having a shell with an outer surface including a bottom edge (fig 2);
a rail (member 27) mounted to the outer surface, the rail defining: a dovetail slot (member 32) for attaching a component to the rail and a channel (member 31) enclosed within the rail, wherein the dovetail slot has a front end and the channel forms an outlet adjacent the front end (fig 2); and
a cord (member 25) having a first end fixed in the channel and extending from the rail to terminate in a second end in an extended position and detached from the accessory in a retracted position, wherein the outlet deforms toward the outer surface to accommodate the cord such that the cord is recessed below the mounting surface of the rail and remains clear of the front end of the dovetail slot (figs 2 and 7),
wherein, the rail defines an opening for receiving a buckle, the opening disposed between the dovetail slot and the bottom edge; a buckle comprising a deformable latch for releasably attaching the buckle to the opening; and the buckle includes a base for attaching a strap to the buckle, wherein the deformable latch is adapted to be depressed inwardly toward a surface of the helmet when the buckle is inserted into the opening (the limitations is the intended used of the rail).
Hartline does not teach the cord includes at one end a hook attached to an accessory when the cord is in the extended position and the cord detached from the accessory when the cord is in the retracted position.
Richard teaches a helmet having a cord (fig 1, member 23) includes at one end a hook (fig 8, member 36) attached to an accessory when the cord is in the extended position and the cord detached from the accessory when the cord is in the retracted position (figs 1 and 8, col 2, lines 13-18 and 51-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the helmet of Hartline by using the detachable cord of Richard in order to detach and attach the assembly from the helmet when not needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-35 and 37 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07-01-2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §112(b) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments, date 07-01-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented and they have been address as analyzed above.
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 BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights