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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 9 has no brackets or lead lines illustrating where the expanded view is taken from. 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.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 10 has two separate illustrations with no lead lines or brackets showing how they relate to one another. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the title is repeated in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term COMMAND (paragraph 0045), 3M (throughout specification), and LYCRA (paragraph 0053) which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be entirely capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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: support needs to be provided for “inverted dome-shaped pouch” as amended into claims 1 and 18, “the helmet mounting portion arranged for alignment along at least a majority of a length of the back edge of the underside of the helmet” as amended into claim 1, “wherein a top, open perimeter edge of the inverted dome-shaped pouch is aligned along at least a majority of a length of the helmet mounting portion” as amended into claim 1, “having an inverted dome-shaped, where a top, open perimeter edge of the pouch is directly suspended from the helmet mounting portion” as amended into claim 18 and “wherein an opening of the hair retainer portion is suspended between, and spans , arms of the c-shaped helmet mount” as amended into claim 19.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 18, 19 and 21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 19, it is unclear if the helmet is being positively claimed or not. The claims use “configured to” language when the helmet is presented, the preamble is directed to the hair retainer, but then the claims positively recite “the helmet” and/or “a majority of a length of the back edge of the underside of the helmet”. If applicant wants to only claim the hair retainer the language needs to be addressed so that the helmet structure is not being positively rejected.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear what “the hair retaining portion” is referring to. Is this in addition to the “hair retaining pouch” previously recited? It is unclear what structure is required to read on the claim and how may hair retaining structures are being claimed. Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear what “the helmet mount” is referring to and how it relates to the helmet retainer structure and the “helmet mounting portion” recited in claim 18 from which claim 21 depends. Further there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
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 CN10328491 (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 extend from a back edge or from 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-shaped (back of 2 where 3 is connected, see figures 1 and 2), where a top open perimeter edges of the pouch is directly suspended from the helmet extending portion (see figures 1 and 2), 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 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 removable 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.
Claims 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mecaliff (ES 1200286) in view of Arai (US 8,327,465).
In regard to claim 19, Mecaliff teaches a hair retainer (hair retainer 1) for a helmet (helmet: B) comprising: a helmet mount (clip: 4) for mounting to a back edge or an underside of the helmet (see figures 1 and 2); and a hair retaining pouch defining a volumetric container (flexible material: 2 in figure 3 with pocket 7 forming volumetric container), where an opening of the hair retaining portion is suspended between and spans arms of the helmet mount (see opening to pocket 7 suspended between and spanning arms of helmet mount: 4 in figure 3), the hair retaining pouch for retaining long hair from a head of a user whilst the user is wearing the helmet (see figure 2, hair A retained in retaining portion 2 while the helmet B is worn).
Further, Mecaliff teaches a mounting portion with a shape that conforms to a back of a helmet (Figure 1).
However, Mecaliff fails to specifically teach the mounting portion being C-shaped to conform to the back of the helmet.
Arai teaches a helmet mounting portion (neck pad: 1) that is shaped to conform to a back of a helmet (helmet: A)(Figure 2 details the neck pad having a c-shaped frame), and wherein the mounting portion is c-shaped attached thereto (mounting portion/engaging member: 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the helmet mounting portion of Meacliff with a substantially c-shape as taught by Arai, since the mounting portion of Meacliff provided in a substantially c-shape would provide a contoured fit to the back of the helmet so as to easily conform and attach properly thereto. Applicant’s invention, Meacliff, and Arai are all in the same field of endeavor teaching helmet mounting devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Meacliff fails to teach a C-shaped helmet mount for mounting to a back edge or to an underside of a helmet, and a hair retaining pouch defining a volumetric container, where an opening of the hair retaining pouch is suspended between and spans arms of the helmet mount.
Meacliff teaches this amended limitation of claim 19 as detailed above in the office action.
Conclusion
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