DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response of 4/1/2026 is received and reviewed. Claims 1, 12, 13 and 16 are amended and claims 18 and 19 are newly submitted. The amendment to the specification is entered. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The intermediate position comprising a defined retentive position as in claims 1 and 16.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the intermediate position comprising a defined retentive position of claims 1 and 16 and the intermediate position defined by engagement of a detent mechanism (claims 18 and 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-19 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. Independent claims 1 and 16 recite “the intermediate position comprising a defined retentive position”. It’s unclear what a defined retentive position is.
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 (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 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 1, 9-11, and 15-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Soto et al. (Soto, U.S. 5,914,816). Soto discloses the invention as claimed. Soto teaches a pivot assembly 10 for pivoting a viewing device 14 in relation to a helmet 12, the pivot assembly comprising: a connection plate 24 configured to be coupled to a helmet interface assembly; a hinge barrel 70 pivotable about a pivot axis in relation to said connection plate 24 among (a) a deployed position in which said hinge barrel is held relative to said connection plate in positive, locking retention (Figure 1 shows the deployed position with hinge barrel 70 held relative to plate 24 in positively, locking retention as plunger 96 is held within detent 100); (b) a stowed position in which said hinge barrel is held relative to said connection plate in positive, locking retention (Figure 2 shows the stowed position with plunger 96 held within detent 102); and (c) an intermediate position between said deployed and stowed positions, the intermediate position comprising a defined retentive position as Soto teaches the hinge barrel is retained in the intermediate position, considered as a defined retentive position, until application of an actuating force as outlined herein, wherein said hinge barrel is held relative to said connection plate by a threshold retentive force and wherein displacement of the hinge barrel from the intermediate position relative to the connection plate requires application of an actuating force which exceeds the threshold retentive force. Column 5, lines 34-41 disclose the spring pressure (plungers 96 are spring-biased in a frictional relationship with the shaft of the barrel 70) is such that the friction between the balls and the shaft is sufficient to retain the night vision goggle in a selected position even if the night vision goggle has not been fully rotated into the use or stowed position. In other words, the spring pressure should be sufficient to prevent a pivotal free fall of the night vision goggle should the user not detent the system in its stowed position. For claim 9, Soto teaches the pivot assembly of claim 1, further comprising a carriage assembly 50 coupled to the hinge barrel 70 via intermediate flange 72, the carriage assembly 50 configured to interface with the viewing device 14.
For claim 10, Soto teaches the pivot assembly of claim 9, further comprising the carriage assembly 50 comprises one or more rail members (shown in Fig.3 extending through openings in carriage/socket assembly 52) secured to the hinge barrel 70 (via intermediate flange 72) and a sliding carriage 52 configured to be selectively positioned on the one or more rail members for adjusting a distance between the viewing device and an eye of a user.
For claim 11, Soto teaches the pivot assembly of claim 1, further comprising a helmet interface assembly 40 coupled to the connection plate 24, the helmet interface assembly 40 configured to secure the pivot assembly to a helmet 12.
For claim 15, Soto teaches the pivot assembly of claim 1, further comprising a tilt adjustment assembly 104 for adjusting a tilt position of the viewing device 14 relative to an eye of a user.
For claim 16, Soto teaches a helmet mount apparatus for a viewing device, the helmet mount apparatus comprising a helmet interface assembly 40 configured to engage with a helmet 12, a pivot assembly 10 coupled to the helmet interface assembly 40, the pivot assembly 10 comprising a connection plate 24 configured to be coupled to a helmet interface assembly 40, a hinge barrel 70 pivotable about a pivot axis in relation to said connection plate 24 among (a) a deployed position in which said hinge barrel is held relative to said connection plate 24 in positive, locking retention (Figure 1 shows the deployed position with hinge barrel 70 held relative to plate 24 in positively, locking retention as plunger 96 is held within detent 100); (b) a stowed position in which said hinge barrel is held relative to said connection plate in positive, locking retention (Figure 2 shows the stowed position with plunger 96 held within detent 102); and (c) an intermediate position between said deployed and stowed positions, the intermediate position comprising a defined retentive position as Soto teaches the hinge barrel is retained in the intermediate position, considered as a defined retentive position, until application of an actuating force as outlined herein, wherein said hinge barrel is held relative to said connection plate by a threshold retentive force and wherein displacement of the hinge barrel from the intermediate position relative to the connection plate requires application of an actuating force which exceeds the threshold retentive force. Column 5, lines 34-41 disclose the spring pressure (plungers/balls 96 are spring-biased in a frictional relationship with the shaft of the barrel 70) is such that the friction between the balls and the shaft is sufficient to retain the night vision goggle in a selected position even if the night vision goggle has not been fully rotated into the use or stowed position. In other words, the spring pressure should be sufficient to prevent a pivotal free fall of the night vision goggle should the user not detent the system in its stowed position. A carriage assembly 50 is coupled to the pivot assembly 10, the carriage assembly 50 configured to engage with the viewing device 14.
For claim 17, Soto teaches the helmet mount apparatus of claim 16, in combination with the viewing device 14.
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 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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto '816 in view of Teetzel et al. (U.S. 9,709,792). Soto discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach the pivot assembly of claim 1, wherein the helmet interface assembly includes a breakaway mechanism configurable between a non-breakaway configuration and a breakaway configuration, wherein the helmet interface assembly is configured to securely lock to a mounting fixture disposed on the helmet when the breakaway mechanism is in the non-breakaway configuration and wherein the helmet interface assembly is configured to separate from the mounting fixture upon application of a predetermined force when the breakaway mechanism is in the breakaway configuration. Teetzel teaches a helmet interface assembly 116 including a breakaway mechanism 113 configurable (movable) between a non-breakaway configuration and a breakaway configuration, wherein the helmet interface assembly is configured to securely lock to a mounting fixture 114 disposed on the helmet when the breakaway mechanism 113 is in the non-breakaway configuration and wherein the helmet interface assembly 116 is configured to separate from the mounting fixture upon application of a predetermined force when the breakaway mechanism is in the breakaway configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Soto by substituting the quick release mechanism assembly 22 with the breakaway mechanism as taught by Teetzel, as the breakaway mechanism may prevent injury to the wearer in the event of entanglement or impact of the optical/viewing device and doesn't require a strap 30 for retention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto in view of Teetzel as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of O'Connell (U.S. 11,229,252). Soto discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach the pivot assembly of claim 13, wherein the mounting fixture is selected from the group consisting of a three-hole shroud and a one hole shroud. O'Connell teaches a helmet with a mounting fixture consisting of a three-hole shroud 36 with three holes 46. The shroud is configured to be coupled to a helmet and is a known retention system for an accessory device such as night vision goggles or a camera allowing for maintaining the accessory device to be in a stowed or use position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Soto to provide the mounting fixture as a three-hole shroud, as the shroud may be securely coupled to a helmet and the shroud is capable of receiving a retention element of the accessory device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 12, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks are considered. Applicant submits independent claims 1 and 16, as currently amended, distinguish patentably over Soto et al. as Soto’s disclosure that the friction between the ball plungers and the shaft may be sufficient to prevent free fall of the device when positioned between the detents merely reflects incidental frictional resistance encountered between two discrete detent-defined positions and therefore Soto doesn’t disclose, teach, or suggest an intermediate position that constitutes a defined retentive position. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s remarks with regard to the newly added limitations to claims 1 and 16. The amended language “the intermediate position comprising a defined retentive position” doesn’t distinguish the claims over Soto, as the intermediate position is a functional recitation of the hinge barrel position as being pivotable about a pivot axis in relation to the connection plate and the position of the hinge barrel frictionally retained in an intermediate position between the deployed and stowed positions is considered to constitute a defined retentive position. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the third position (intermediate position?) is not merely a point along a continuum of motion, but a defined retentive position at which the hinge barrel is intentionally held and from which displacement requires overcoming a threshold retentive force, the Examiner submits that the defined retentive position is not disclosed in the specification such that the interpretation sought by Applicant is possible. Also note that the limitation doesn’t recite further structural language associated with a defined retentive position. The arguments to the rejections of the dependent claims under 35 USC 103 hinge upon the same arguments presented with regard to the 102(a)1 rejections.
Regarding the previously indicated drawing objection, this rejection is withdrawn based on Applicant’s response citing the US 8,739,313 incorporated by reference.
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights