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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the thickness and shading of the lines are inconsistent, some of the lines are blurred, and the identifiers numeral are difficult to make out. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 1 and the claims that depend therefrom 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. It is unclear how “the raised walls” are associated with the safety helmet system. What are “the raised walls” structurally and how are they structured with respect to the accessory, helmet and receptacles. Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duderstadt (US 9,047,790) in view of Ramey (US 2019/0008228).
In regard to claim 1, Duderstadt teaches a safety helmet system, comprising: a safety helmet comprising: a molded outer shell adapted to be worn by a user (helmet in figures 8-10 and figures 12-15), the outer shell having an exterior surface defining a front side, a rear side, and a brim extending forwardly from the front side (see figures 8-10 and figures 12-15 detailing front, rear, brim and exterior surface); a front receptacle having a first pair of external slots and a stop (figures 1A-7 slots: 11, 13 or figures 16-18 slots: 39, 41 and stop: convex surface of front face: 3; column 3, lines 32-47 or convex surfaces 35, 36, 37 column 7, lines 52-62), wherein each of the pair of external slots extending upwardly along the front side of the outer shell and the stop is disposed between the first pair of external slots (see figures 1-3, 6 or 17 and slots in relation to front convex face/surfaces), and wherein the stop is integrally molded with the exterior surface of the outer shell (front convex face: 3 or inner curved surface: 35 and 36 and/or 37; column 3, lines 21-24 or column 7, lines 52-62); and an accessory device having a mating receptacle formed thereon (accessory is implement as described in column 7, lines 9-11 with attached rigid cardstock item: column 7, lines 9-18, the mating receptacle being the sides of the cardstock), at least a portion of the mating receptacle being selectively engageable with the at least one receptacle (column 7, lines 9-18); wherein each of the first pair of external slots of the front receptacle is a receiver slot (figures 1A-7 slots: 11, 13 or figures 16-18 slots: 39, 41); wherein the stop comprises a protruding member (stop protruding member is convex surface of front face: 3; column 3, lines 32-47 or convex surfaces 35, 36, 37 column 7, lines 52-62); wherein the accessory device includes a clip (accessory device column 7, lines 9-11 includes a clip: rigid cardstock item: column 7, lines 9-18); and wherein the receiver slot aligns the clip therein column 3, lines 21-24 or column 7, lines 52-62), the raised walls retain the clip (column 3, lines 21-24 or column 7, lines 52-62), and the protruding member engages the clip to releasably mount the accessory device in the front receptacle (protruding member is convex surface 3 or 35, 36, 37 and clip is rigid cardstock item).
However, Duderstadt fails to teach a rear receptacle disposed on the rear side on the exterior surface of the outer shell, the rear receptacle having a second pair of external slots; and the accessory device’s mating receptacle being selectively engageable with the front receptacle or the rear receptacle such that the accessory device is releasably mountable onto each of the front receptacle and the rear receptacle.
Ramey teaches a safety helmet with identical receptacles on the front and rear side of the outer shell to universally attach accessories for mounting on the helmet on the front or rear receptacles (paragraphs 0012, 0080 and Figures 2A, 2B).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the safety helmet of Duderstadt with an identical rear receptacle as taught by Ramey, since the helmet of Duderstadt provided with both front and rear receptacles would provide multiple locations to attach items to the helmet as desired based upon need.
In regard to claim 2, Duderstadt teaches wherein the outer shell, the front receptacle, and the rear receptacle are formed from a common material (column 3, lines 22-25).
In regard to claim 3, Duderstadt teaches wherein the common material is plastic (column 3, lines 22-25).
In regard to claim 4, Ramey teaches further including a second accessory device having a second mating receptacle formed thereon, at least a portion of the second accessory device being releasably mountable onto each of the front receptacle or the rear receptacle on the exterior of the outer shell (paragraph 0012 and 0080).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the safety helmet of Duderstadt with a secondary accessory device as taught by Ramey, since the helmet of Duderstadt provided with a secondary accessory device would provide two accessories attachable to the helmet at the same time.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,452,327. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and US 12,452,327 teach a safety helmet with front and rear molded receptacles that attach to first and second accessories interchangeably via slots and clips (claim 1 of the instant application is word-for-word the same as claim 1, expect for the last couple lines).
Claim 1 last couple lines of instant application:
PNG
media_image1.png
177
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 last couple lines of US 12,452,327:
wherein each of the first pair of external slots of the front receptacle is a receiver slot flanked by raised walls, and the stop comprises a protruding member, wherein the accessory device includes a clip, and wherein the receiver slot aligns the accessory device therein, the raised walls retain the accessory device therebetween, and the protruding member engages the clip to releasably mount the accessory device in the front receptacle.
The highlighted portions of claim 1 of US 12,452,327 teach the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. The only differences in wording do not equate to different structures, call the accessory device comprising a clip, a clip or an accessory device is referring to the same structure.
Claim 2 of the instant application is word-for-word the same as claim 2 of US 12,268,265.
Claim 3 of the instant application is word-for-word the same as claim 3 of US 12,268,265.
Claim 4 of the instant application is word-for-word the same as claim 4 of US 12,268,265.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,452,327. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and US 11,452,327 teach a safety helmet with front and rear molded receptacles that attach to first and second accessories interchangeably via slots and clips (see claims 1-2 of the instant application with claims 1, 2 and 4 and/or claims 8, 9, 11 and 12 of US 11,452,327 teach same claimed limitations, with US 11,452,327 being more specific to the structures); claim 3 of the instant application with claims 3 or 10 of US 11,452,327 (claims have exact claim language), claim 4 of the instant application with claim 8 of US 11,452,327 (claims have exact claim language).
Claims 1 and 2 from present application:
PNG
media_image2.png
757
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 2 from US 11,452,327:
1. A safety helmet, comprising: an outer shell adapted to be worn by a user, the outer shell being molded from a common material and having an exterior surface defining a front side, a rear side, and a brim extending forward from the front side and configured to shield the user's eyes from sunlight or falling debris, wherein the outer shell is reversible such that one of the front side or the rear side is oriented above a face of the user when the outer shell is worn by the user, and wherein the brim is configured to be disposed above the face of the user when the outer shell is worn by the user with the front side being oriented above the face of the user; a front receptacle having an external slot extending upwardly along the front side on the [[an]] exterior surface of the outer shell above the brim and a protruding nub, wherein the protruding nub is integrally molded with the outer shell from the common material and is disposed centrally relative to the external slot and directly onto the exterior surface of the outer shell at an upward location away from the brim a unitary feature of the outer shell; a rear receptacle having an additional external slot disposed on the rear side on the exterior surface of the outer shell, wherein the front receptacle and the rear receptacle are of identical construction; and an accessory device having a mating receptacle formed thereon, at least a portion of the mating receptacle being selectively engageable within each of the external slot of the front receptacle or the additional external slot of the rear receptacle such that the accessory device is releasably mountable onto each of the front receptacle and the rear receptacle on the exterior surface of the outer shell.
2. The safety helmet of claim 1, wherein the external slot of the front receptacle is a receiver slot flanked by raised walls and the protruding nub comprises a stop, wherein the accessory device includes a clip, and wherein the receiver slot aligns the accessory device therein, the raised walls retain the accessory device therebetween, and the stop engages the clip to releasably mount the accessory device in the front receptacle.
The protruding nub of US 11,452,327 is equivalent to the stop of the instant applications claim 1.
Claim 2 is found in claim detailing that the receptacles and helmet are made from a common material (see claims 1 or 8 and 10 of US 11,452,327).
Claim 3 of the instant application is the same as claims 3 or 10 of US 11,452,327.
Claim 4 of the instant application is the same as claim 8 US 11,452,327.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Klotz et al. (US 10,165,819) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
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