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
This is in response to amendment received on 07/06/26. Claims 19 and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are examined herein.
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.
Claim(s) 18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN10328391 (herein referred to as CN103) in view of Mecailff (ES 1200286).
In regard to claim 18, CN103 teaches a hair retainer (bottom of 2 and 3) for a helmet (helmet: 1) comprising: a helmet extending portion (projection 2: top part extending from where mesh 3 is attached) configured to mount to a back edge or to an underside of the helmet (see figures 1 and 2 and English translation of description); and a hair retaining pouch defining a volumetric container and having an inverted dome-shape (hair cap: 3 attached to protrusion: 2, figure 1: forms a volumetric container, see opening: 4 and pouch: 3 below to retain hair, see English translation of summery of the invention, dome-shaped can be any one of domed, curved, arched, convex, bowed, humped, semicircular, or rounded to name few: see dome-shape of figure 2 of hair cap: 3), where a top open perimeter edges of the pouch is directly suspended from the helmet extending portion (see figures 1 and 2, perimeter edge of hair cap: 3 at opening 4, is attached to protrusion: 2 at edges), the hair retaining pouch for retaining long hair from a head of a user whilst the user is wearing the helmet (see English translation of description).
However, CN103 fails to teach the helmet extending portion being a helmet mounting portion configured to mount to a back edge or to an underside of a helmet.
Mecailff teaches a hair retaining pouch (see figure 3, identifiers 2 and 7) that is removably connected to a helmet back edge via a helmet mounting portion (clip: 4 and figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the helmet extending portion of CN103 to be removably attached as a helmet mount taught by Mecailff, since the hair retainer being removably attached to a helmet would allow one to customize a helmet to hold hair as desired or required.
In regard to claim 20, CN103 teaches wherein the hair retaining pouch is formed of a resiliently deformable material (See English description translation detailing on the first page and the second page the material type and construction of the hair pouch material, identifier 3).
In regard to claim 21, the combined references teach wherein the helmet mount is substantially C-shaped (see Mecaliff figure 3, clip 4 having a substantially C-shape).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the helmet extending portion of CN103 to be removably attached as a helmet mount with a substantially C-shape as taught by Mecailff, since the hair retainer being removable attached to a helmet would allow one to customize a helmet to hold hair as desired or required and the substantially C-shaped mount would conform to the back contour of a helmet to fit therewith.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns (Des. 133,490) in view of Dahlberg (US 2,192,341).
In regard to claim 19, Burns teaches a hair retainer for a helmet (see annotated figure below and description and title: detailing an industrial safety cap, which is a helmet) comprising: a c-shaped attachment to a back edge or to an underside of the industrial safety cap/helmet (see annotated figure below); and a hair retaining pouch defining a volumetric container (see annotated figure below), where an opening of the hair retaining portion is suspended between, and spans, the c-shaped attachment (see annotated figure below), the hair retaining pouch for retaining long hair from a head of a user whilst the user is wearing the industrial safety cap/helmet (capable of see structure in annotated figure below), wherein an opening of the hair retaining pouch is suspended directly from and spans between terminal ends of the c-shaped attachment (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Burns fails to teach the c-shaped attachment, being a c-shaped mount for mounting to the helmet/industrial safety cap.
Dahlberg teaches a headwear article with a c-shaped attachment to attach an accessory thereto, wherein the c-shaped attachment is a removable zipper fastener to allow for removal and attachment of the headwear accessory as desired for use or cleaning (see figure 2, headwear: 3, mount zipper: 12 and accessory: 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the hair retaining pouch of Burns to be attached via a removable c-shaped zipper mount as taught by Dahlberg, since the hair retaining pouch of Burns attached via a removable zipper mount would teach a hair retaining pouch that can be removed and attached as desired or needed to an industrial safety cap to provide a means to retain hair therein as desired of needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that CN 103 fails to teach an inverted dome-shaped hair retaining pouch.
CN 103 teaches a hair retaining pouch defining a volumetric container and having an inverted dome-shape (hair cap: 3 attached to protrusion: 2 of figure 1: forms a volumetric container, see opening: 4 and pouch made by 3 and 2 there below to retain hair thein, see English translation of summery of the invention, dome-shaped can be any one of domed, curved, arched, convex, bowed, humped, semicircular, or rounded to name few: see dome-shape of figure 2 of hair cap: 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Bridges (US 5,701,609) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights