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 .
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 14-18,26-29,33,36 and 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.
In claim 14 it is unclear how the shroud adapter assembly structurally or functionally relates to the mounting system of claim 2.
In claim 15 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the gantry”, as such it is unclear how the gantry relates to the claimed invention.
In claim 26 it is unclear if the knob is meant to be the same knob recited in claim 2, or a separate knob. Further in claim 26 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the carriage”.
In claim 33 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first end portion”.
In claim 36 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the tilt member”. It appears that this may be meant to reference “the tilt adjustment member”.
In claim 37 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the tilt member sleeve”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-4,12,13,19,22-24,31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reed et al(US7810168).
[claim 2] Reed teaches a mounting system, comprising: a tilt adjustment assembly(fig 2) comprising a knob(210) in communication with a tilt adjustment member(260), wherein the tilt adjustment member is movable in a front to back direction, in response to rotation of the knob, to provide a tilt adjustment(C4 L13-22), and wherein the tilt adjustment member cooperates with a floatable interlock member(206) to position the mounting system at a desired tilt position.
[claim 3] wherein the tilt adjustment assembly comprises a carriage(200) that has a first channel(220,222) at a top portion thereof that extends laterally, wherein the carriage has a second channel(262) that is orthogonal to the first channel and that extends in a front to back direction under the first channel, and wherein the second channel holds the tilt adjustment member(fig 3).
[claim 4] wherein the tilt adjustment member comprises a tilt adjustment piston(260).
[claim 12] further comprising a vision device mounting plate(102) removably attached to the carriage and a gantry(114) removably attached to a shroud adapter assembly(fig 1a).
[claim 13] wherein the mounting system is configured to provide a defined or selected stow position relative to a helmet that is the same at any tilt position provided by the tilt adjustment assembly(C2 L49-67).
[claim 19] further comprising a carriage(200,110) having a lower end portion with laterally spaced apart right and left sides with corresponding right and left side rails(274,276) that extend in a front to back direction and that slidably couple to a vision device mount plate(102), wherein one of the right and left sides comprises a shoulder(280), and wherein a fore/aft adjustment knob(712) extends from the shoulder and is coupled to a laterally extendable clamp(716) whereby a user rotates the fore/aft adjustment knob to linearly translate the laterally extendable clamp to a clamping position to thereby lock the vision device mounting plate at a desired fore/aft position.
[claim 22] wherein the system comprises a carriage (220,110)coupled to a gantry(114), with the gantry releasably attached to a shroud adapter(fig 1a), wherein the carriage has a lower end portion with a device-to-vision device release assembly(110) to thereby allow a vision device to be released from the mounting system.
[claim 23] wherein the floatable interlock member has a long centerline axis that is orthogonal to a long centerline axis of the tilt adjustment member in a first position of tilt(fig 6A), wherein, in a second position of tilt, the long centerline axis of the floatable interlock member is greater than 90 degrees from the long centerline axis of the tilt adjustment member(fig 6C), and wherein, in a third position of tilt, the long centerline axis of the floatable interlock member is less than 90 degrees from the long centerline axis of the tilt adjustment member(fig 6B).
[claim 24] further comprising a carriage(220,110) having a lower end portion with laterally spaced apart right and left sides with corresponding right and left side rails(274,276) that extend in a front to back direction and that slidably, interchangeably and serially couple to at least first and second different configurations of vision device mount plates thereby attaching different types of vision devices to the vision mounting system(lower member 110 could be attached to different vision device mounting plates).
[claim 31] Reed teaches a vision mounting system comprising: a tilt adjustment member(260) configured to travel in fore and aft directions; a floatable interlock member(206) that cooperates with the tilt adjustment member; and a pusher member(120) configured to travel laterally and that is configured to push against the floatable interlock member.
[claim 32] wherein the floatable interlock member has at least one rounded end portion(both upper and lower ends shown as rounded in figure 3).
[claim 33] wherein the floatable interlock member has a second end portion(214) that is axially spaced apart from the first end portion(lower end) and that has a rounded circumferentially extending outer edge.
[claim 34] wherein the floatable interlock member comprises a center channel(216) extending a partial length of the floatable interlock member.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Teetzel et al(US8739313).
[claim 14,15] Reed teaches a mounting system as detailed above with a shroud adapter assembly as seen in figure 1a. Reed however does not provide details of the shroud adapter assembly, or that it comprises a pin held in a laterally extending slot coupled to a spring-loaded mount release button, or that the gantry comprises a rear facing surface comprising upper and lower stops, wherein the pin resides between the upper and lower stops, when assembled, and wherein one or more of the lower stop and/or the upper stop comprises auto-engaging geometry thereby cooperating with the pin to guide the pin to a desired position as the pin slides with the gantry relative thereto. Teetzel teaches a similar mounting system with a shroud adapter assembly(120) comprising a pin(167) held in a laterally extending slot(159) coupled to a spring-loaded mount release button(156), or that the gantry comprises a rear facing surface comprising upper(upper end of 164 fig 4b) and lower(ends of 168) stops, wherein the pin resides between the upper and lower stops, when assembled, and wherein one or more of the lower stop and/or the upper stop comprises auto-engaging geometry(sides and entry of 164 that engage 154) thereby cooperating with the pin to guide the pin to a desired position as the pin slides with the gantry relative thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the shroud adapter assembly of Teetzel in places of the shroud adapter of Reed, as this would provide a means for releasing the mounting system from the shroud as taught by Teetzel.
[claim 16,17] Reed teaches a mounting system as detailed above, and further teaches that the system could provide vertical adjustment(C1 L30-32). Reed however does not provide specific details about how the vertical adjustment is accomplished, or that the mounting system comprises a vertical adjustment sub-assembly coupled to a side of the gantry, wherein the vertical adjustment sub-assembly further comprises a clamp, wherein the clamp is configured to move in a first direction to unclamp from features on a surface of the shroud adapter assembly and features of the gantry to allow for vertical adjustment of the gantry relative to the shroud adapter assembly, and wherein the clamp is configured to move in a second direction to clamp against features of the surface of the shroud adapter to clamp the mounting system to the shroud adapter assembly and the gantry. Teetzel teaches a similar mounting system and further teaches a vertical adjustment sub-assembly(120,152,160) coupled to a side of a gantry(152), wherein the vertical adjustment sub-assembly further comprises a clamp(366), wherein the clamp is configured to move in a first direction(C6 L18-34) to unclamp from features(rails 162) on a surface of a shroud adapter assembly and features of the gantry(body of gantry 152 between knob 360 and clamp 366) to allow for vertical adjustment of the gantry relative to the shroud adapter assembly, and wherein the clamp is configured to move in a second direction to clamp against features of the surface of the shroud adapter to clamp the mounting system to the shroud adapter assembly and the gantry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the vertical adjustment subassembly of Teetzel with the mounting system of Reed, as this would provide a means for vertical adjustment of the mount and held vision device, as taught by Teetzel.
[claim 18] wherein the clamp(366 of Teetzel) comprises angled clamp surfaces(ears 367, C6 L31-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11,20,21,25-30,35-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as being amended to overcome the above 112 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regards to claim 5, the prior art teaches a mounting system as defined in claim 3 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach such a mounting system where the floatable interlock member is a pill, or the use of a laterally extending pill pusher in the hinge axle, with an outer surface that resides over the pill, as recited in claim 5.
With regards to claim 8, the prior art teaches a mounting system as defined in claim 2 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach wherein the tilt adjustment member comprises a cavity sized and configured to releasably couple to an end portion of the floatable interlock member as recited in claim 8.
With regards to claim 20, the prior art teaches the mounting system of claim 19 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach a device release button on the lower end portion of the carriage, above a corresponding right or left side rail, wherein the device release button is coupled to a downwardly extending pin, with the device release button configured to slide the pin laterally to engage or disengage a channel in the vision device mount plate, as recited in claim 20.
With regards to claim 25, the prior art teaches the mounting system of claim 2 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach first and second stow detents that are circumferentially spaced apart about a hinge axle in a range of 2 degrees and 90 degrees to provide different selectable stow positions, as recited in claim 25.
With regards to claim 26, the prior art teaches the mounting system of claim 2 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach an axially extending sleeve surrounding the tilt adjustment member, with first and second thrust washers as recited in claim 26.
With regards to claim 30, the prior art teaches the mounting system of claim 2 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach wherein the carriage comprises a clamp with an angled profile that tapers inward from a medial to bottom portion whereby the clamp is configured to abut against first and second clamp surfaces provided by the carriage, wherein the first and second clamp surfaces are spaced apart in a front to back direction, and wherein the clamp surfaces of the carriage taper inward toward each other to matably receive the clamp to thereby prevent downward movement of the clamp during clamping into and/or when in a locked fore/aft position as recited in claim 30.
With regards to claim 35, the prior art teaches the mounting system of claim 31 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach a stow detent inside of and affixed to a carriage holding a hinge defining a hinge axis, wherein the carriage holds the tilt adjustment member and the pusher member wherein the pusher member travels in the hinge, as recited in claim 35.
With regards to claim 36, the prior art teaches the mounting system of claim 31 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach a tilt member sleeve that surrounds the tilt member, wherein the tilt member sleeve comprises an aperture in an outer wall thereof that aligns with a cavity in the tilt adjustment member as recited in claim 36.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US12253665, US7219370.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights