DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12-23-2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 29 and 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 is rejected because of the limitations "the rail remains below the mounting surface of the rail and does not interfere with removal or placement of the component on the rail" lacks support in the original specification which filed 04-19-2024; therefore such lack of detailed support in the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
Claim 31 is rejected because of the limitations "the cord remains clear of the path used to attach or remove a component from the dovetail" lacks support in the original specification which filed 04-19-2024; therefore such lack of detailed support in the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
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 29 and 31-37 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 29 is rejected because of the limitations "the rail does not interfere with removal or placement of the component on the rail". It is clear how the structure does not interfere with removal or placement on the rail. There is not any explanation to understand the limitations.
Claim 31 is rejected because of the limitations "the cord remains clear of the path used to attach or remove a component from the dovetail". It is clear how the remains clear of the path. There is not any explanation to understand the limitations. In addition, what or where is the path?
Claim 35 is rejected because of the limitations “wherein the deformable latch is adapted to be depressed inwardly toward a surface of the helmet when the buckle is inserted into the opening”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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 31-33 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 has a front end and the channel forms an outlet adjacent the front end; 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 such that the cord remains below the mounting surface of the rail and does not interfere with removal or placement of the component on the rail (fig 7, the very front portion of the channel 25).
Regarding claim 31, Hartline teaches a helmet assembly comprising: a helmet having a shell with an outer surface including a bottom edge ();
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; and
a cord (member 25) having a first end fixed in the channel and extending from the rail to terminate in a second end; 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 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 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 32, the modified helmet Hartline-Richard discloses the opening is disposed between the front portion and the rear portion of the rail (Hartline, figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 33, the modified helmet Hartline-Richard discloses the rail is mounted above a lower rim of the helmet (Hartline, figs 1-2).
Claim 30 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 Crossman et al. (2007/0083967).
Regarding claim 30, Hartline teaches a helmet assembly comprising: a helmet having a top, a bottom, a front and a back (fig 2);
a rail (member 27) mounted to an outer surface of the helmet, the rail comprising a front portion extending along the helmet between the front and the back and a rear portion extending along the helmet toward the bottom edge of the helmet from a back end of the front portion (fig 2),
Hartline does not teach the rail having an opening for receiving a buckle; and a buckle comprising a deformable latch for releasably attaching the buckle to the rail, wherein the deformable latch is adapted hold the buckle in place when the buckle is assembled into the opening and to release the buckle from the opening when the deformable latch is actuated toward the outer surface of the helmet.
Crossman teach a helmet having a rail and an opening for receiving a buckle; and a buckle comprising a deformable latch for releasably attaching the buckle to the rail, wherein the deformable latch is adapted hold the buckle in place when the buckle is assembled into the opening and to release the buckle from the opening when the deformable latch is actuated toward the outer surface of the helmet (figs 31 – 32, member 258 and 266).
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 adding a latch buckle of Crossman in order to add another layer of securing the helmet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 and 36-37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
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).
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).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26-29, 31-33, and 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,039. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claimed a helmet system having a rail with dovetail slot and enclosed channel, a cord having a hook.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 12-23-2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C §112(a) and §112(b) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the limitations are inherit from the specific structure however, the examiner respectfully disagree since there is not any prove that specific function came from those structure.
Applicant's arguments, date 12-23-2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: applicant argues about claim 30 is moot due to the amend to the claim.
Argument 2: applicant argues about claim 26 and said that “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 cord is retained within the channel and the outlet adjacent the front end of the dovetail slot”. However, the examiner respectfully disagree since Hartline figs 1-2 and 7 discloses that the cord is place inside the channel and member 32 is dovetail slot.
Conclusion
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