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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species A in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
In the reply, Applicant indicated claims 1-18 as reading upon the elected invention. That said, claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21, 2025.
Status of the Claims
As directed by Applicant’s reply received on November 21, 2025, claims 19-20 have been canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-18 are currently pending in this application with claims 12-14 being withdrawn from further consideration. An action on the merits follows.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“a retention mechanism for retaining the locking slider at or near the mounting component when the locking slider is in a disengaged position” recited in claim 7
“full brim construction helmet” and the “cap style construction helmet” recited in claim 16
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 appear(s) to show an improper exploded view. The exploded view should include a bracket or line to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts.
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 – Abstract
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 at line 1, “Systems and methods are provided […]” is implied phraseology. It is suggested that the first sentence of the abstract be removed and the second sentence instead read “A helmet shell mounting assembly includes a mounting component and […]”. 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).
Specification – Disclosure
The disclosure is objected to because [0001] should be updated to recite the patent number now associated with Appl. 17/715,338.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 15-18 are objected to because of the inconsistent use of the terms “A helmet shell mounting assembly”, “assembly”, and “mounting assembly” to all seemingly refer to the same structure (i.e., the helmet shell mounting assembly) in the preambles and the bodies of the claims. The same language should be used consistently throughout the claims to refer to the same term (i.e., “helmet shell mounting assembly”).
Claim 4 is objected to because at line 3, “a disengaged position” should read “the disengaged position”.
Claim 7 is objected to because at line 3, “a disengaged position” should read “the disengaged position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a retention mechanism” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-11 and 15-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a locking slider configured to interface with the mounting component when in an engaged position” at lines 3-4. It is unclear if the locking slider, the mounting component, or both are meant to be in an engaged position. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Correction is required. If meant to refer to the locking slider, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a locking slider configured to interface with the mounting component when the locking slider is in an engaged position”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the disengaged position” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a disengaged position”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the mounting assembly comprises a weak point” at line 1. It is unclear what is considered a weak point on a structure, what makes the point “weak”, and how the weak point relates to the structure of the claimed mounting assembly. For example, is the weak point a material property, a structural additional or omission, etc.? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood as meaning a point on a structure capable of fracture or mechanical failure under load when applying prior art.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the mounting portion” at lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the mounting component, the assembly as a whole, or some other improperly introduced structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Correction is required. If meant to refer back to the mounting component, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the mounting component”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the mounting portion” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the mounting component, the assembly as a whole, or some other improperly introduced structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Correction is required. If meant to refer back to the mounting component, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the mounting component”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the outer helmet shell” which was only introduced as part of a functional imitation and never positively recited in the claims. The claim then continues to further limit the limitation of the outer helmet shell. It is unclear how the claim is meant to further limit the claimed invention when it is unclear if the recited structure (i.e., the outer helmet shell) is necessarily required by the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Correction is required. It is suggested that the limitation of the outer helmet shell be positively recited at some point in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of the outer helmet shell, as best can be understood, will be interpreted as not being necessarily required by the claim when applying prior art.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the inner helmet” which was only introduced as part of a functional imitation and never positively recited in the claims. The claim then continues to further limit the limitation of the inner helmet. It is unclear how the claim is meant to further limit the claimed invention when it is unclear if the recited structure (i.e., the inner helmet) is necessarily required by the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Correction is required. It is suggested that the limitation of the inner helmet be positively recited at some point in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of the inner helmet, as best can be understood, will be interpreted as not being necessarily required by the claim when applying prior art.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the inner helmet” which was only introduced as part of a functional imitation and never positively recited in the claims. The claim then continues to further limit the limitation of the inner helmet. It is unclear how the claim is meant to further limit the claimed invention when it is unclear if the recited structure (i.e., the inner helmet) is necessarily required by the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Correction is required. It is suggested that the limitation of the inner helmet be positively recited at some point in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of the inner helmet, as best can be understood, will be interpreted as not being necessarily required by the claim when applying prior art.
Claims 2-11 and 15-18 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected 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.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-18, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0163160 to Oleson (hereinafter, “Oleson”) in view of USPN 6,108,824 to Fournier et al. (hereinafter, “Fournier”).
Regarding claim 1, Oleson teaches a helmet shell mounting assembly, comprising: a mounting component (See Oleson, Figs. 1-2; bar (86) and bracket (74) connected with fasteners (78) to join outer helmet shell (12) and inner helmet (14, 17)).
That said, Oleson is silent to a locking slider configured to interface with the mounting component when in an engaged position to secure an outer helmet shell to an inner helmet, wherein when the locking slider is in the disengaged position, the outer helmet shell is removable from the inner helmet and the mounting component.
However, Fournier, in a related helmet art, is directed to a helmet having front and rear half sections and a quick-release locking assembly (215) for selectively locking the sections together (See Fournier, Figs. 14-28; abstract). More specifically, Fournier teaches a mounting component (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; cover (290)) and a locking slider (plate (280)) configured to interface with the mounting component when in an engaged position to secure an outer helmet shell to an inner helmet (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; plate (280) is capable of interfacing with cover (290) in an engaged position, i.e., Fig. 21, to secure a hypothetical outer helmet shell to a hypothetical inner helmet, such as outer and inner helmet portions (312, 314); Examiner notes that the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet are not positively recited in the claim; so long as structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, the claimed functional limitations will be interpreted as being met by the prior art), wherein when the locking slider is in the disengaged position, the outer helmet shell is removable from the inner helmet and the mounting component (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; a hypothetical outer helmet shell is capable of being removed from a hypothetical inner helmet, such as outer and inner helmet portions (312, 314), and a mounting component (cover (290)) when plate (280) is in a disengaged position, i.e., Fig. 22; cross post members (272, 274) are further capable of being removed from plate (280) via widest, correspondingly-shaped portions of openings (287) proximate release region (281) as seen in Fig. 25 thereby allowing for complete removal of outer shell).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to replace the bar and fastener attachment system of Oleson with the quick release attachment system disclosed by Fournier, wherein the bar and fasteners extending through holes of Oleson are replaced by the spring plate (270) and cross post members (272, 274) of Fournier to extend up through correspondingly shaped holes formed through the bracket and outer shell of Oleson to attach to the remaining sling plate (280) and cover plate (290) of Fournier. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to make such a modification for a variety of reasons include for example, but not limited to, providing a quick release mechanism between the inner and outer helmet portions that is faster and does not require a user to use additional tools (See Fournier, Col. 1; lines 29-35). As a result of the modification, the bases of spring plates (270) of Fournier replace bars (86, 87) of Oleson as attachment points of chinstrap portions (88, 89) in the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson.
Regarding claim 2, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the mounting assembly is configured to provide separation of the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet when the mounting assembly is subjected to greater than a threshold tensile load (See Fournier, Figs. 21-22; locking assembly (215) of Fournier as applied to the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson is capable of providing separation of the outer helmet shell and inner helmet when slider plate (280) of the locking assembly is subjected to a force over a threshold to move the posts (272, 274) out of respective retention regions (282, 284), i.e., being moved from a locked to unlocked state; locking assembly (215) as applied to the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson is also capable of providing separation when a component, such as posts (272, 274), are subjected to a threshold tensile load that breaks the posts).
Regarding claim 3, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claims 1-2 above) further teaches wherein the mounting assembly comprises a weak point, wherein the weak point is configured to fracture when subjected to at least the threshold tensile load (See Fournier Figs. 21-22; locking assembly (215) as applied to the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson would include some weak point capable of fracturing when subjected to a threshold tensile load; for example, posts (272, 274) are capable of breaking under an applied threshold tensile load; Examiner notes that the claim limitation is very broad, as any solid structure will have points capable of fracturing or failing under load).
Regarding claim 4, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the outer helmet shell is configured to be removed from the inner helmet when the weak point is fractured or when the locking slider is moved to a disengaged position (a hypothetical outer helmet shell is capable of being removed form a hypothetical inner helmet when a weak point of the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson is fractured or when the sliding plate (280) of the modified mounting assembly is moved to a disengaged position, i.e., unlocked; as previously stated, the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet are not positively recited in the claim; so long as structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, the claimed functional limitations will be interpreted as being met by the prior art).
Regarding claim 5, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the locking slider comprises a transverse locking slider that is configured to substantially span a width of the mounting component when the locking slider is in the engaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-26; sliding plate (280) is capable of extending in a transverse direction and substantially spans a width of the cover plate (290)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the mounting component comprises a channel configured to receive the locking slider when the locking slider is in the engaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-26, cover plate (290) includes an interior channel capable of receiving sliding plate (280) when in the engaged positioned, i.e., locked).
Regarding claim 7, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5-6 above) further teaches wherein the mounting assembly includes a retention mechanism for retaining the locking slider at or near the mounting component when the locking slider is in a disengaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-26; sliding plate (280) is retained by the cover plate (290) even when in a disengaged position at least by a central tabs on the sliding plate (280) which engage corresponding aperture of the cover plate (290)).
Regarding claim 8, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches an anchor (See Fournier, Figs. 21-27; spring plate (270); wherein an extending portion of the anchor is configured to pass through the outer helmet shell via a through hole, wherein the extending portion of the anchor is configured to be received by the mounting component (posts (272, 274) are capable of extending through the outer helmet shell of the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson via correspondingly shaped holes to be received by cover plate (290) on the top side; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), and wherein the locking slider is configured to retain the extending portion of the anchor within the mounting component when in the engaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; sliding plate (280) is capable of retaining posts (272, 274) in respective retention regions (282, 284) within cover plate (290) when the locking assembly is in an engaged positioned, i.e., locked).
Regarding claim 9, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8 above) further teaches wherein the anchor comprises: the extending portion of the anchor (See Fournier, Figs. 27-28; posts (272, 274)); and a retention portion (base (271)); wherein the retention portion is larger than the through hole such that the retention portion is configured to reside on one side of the through hole while the extending portion is configured to extend through the through hole for retention by the locking slider once received by the mounting component (See Fournier, Figs. 21-22; base (271) is larger than the correspondingly shaped through holes in the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson and capable of residing on one side while the posts (272, 274) are capable of extending up through the holes for retention by sliding plate (280) and cover plate (290)).
Regarding claim 10, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8-9 above) further teaches wherein the extending portion comprises a plurality of hooks (See Fournier, Figs. 27-28; cross members (273, 275)).
Regarding claim 11, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8-10 above) further teaches wherein the locking slider comprises an anchor trapping region (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; retention regions (282, 284); Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the anchor trapping region includes a recess configured to partially surround an upper portion of at least one of said plurality of hooks (release regions (281) are capable of partially surrounding an upper portions cross members (273, 275)) and a retention surface configured to be positioned above a lower portion of said at least one of said plurality of hooks so as to limit an ability to extract said at least one of said plurality of hooks from the mounting portion when the locking slider is in the engaged position (locked regions (285) are capable of extending above a lower portions of cross members (273, 275) to limit an ability to extract the cross members from cover plate (290) when in an engaged position, i.e., locked).
Regarding claim 15, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the locking slider includes a notch or a protuberance configured to interface with the mounting portion to hold the locking slider in the engaged position until the locking slider is subjected to more than a threshold force to disengage the locking slider (See Fournier, Figs. 21-25; sliding plate (280) includes protruding central tabs which are capable of interfacing with corresponding apertures of the cover plate (290) and holding the locking slider when the cover plate is moved to the engaged position until the cover plate and sliding plates are subjected to a threshold force, e.g., the force of a user manipulating the locking assembly, that moves them to the disengaged state).
Regarding claim 16, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the outer helmet shell comprises a full brim fire helmet, a full brim construction helmet, or a cap style construction helmet (See Oleson, Figs. 1-2; outer shell (12) is a full brim fire helmet; [0002]).
Regarding claim 17, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the inner helmet (See Oleson, Figs. 1-3; inner helmet (14, 17)) comprises an inner portion that is configured to conform to a head of a user (inner ring (14) is capable of conforming to the head of a user; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the inner helmet further comprises an outer portion that comprises a shock absorbing material (inner shell (17) is formed of a molded thermoplastic material that is capable of absorbing and attenuating force of an impact; See Oleson, [0024]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson (i.e., Oleson in view of Fournier, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the mounting component is permanently attached to the inner helmet (the cover plate (290) in the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson is capable of being permanently attached at least indirectly to a hypothetical inner helmet if a user never removes the cover plate; as previously stated, the inner helmet is not positively recited in the claim; so long as structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, the claimed functional limitations will be interpreted as being met by the prior art).
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 15-18, as best can be understood, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-10, and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,285,071. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as seen below.
U.S. 19/097,225
USPN 12,285,071
1. A helmet shell mounting assembly, comprising: a mounting component; a locking slider configured to interface with the mounting component when in an engaged position to secure an outer helmet shell to an inner helmet, wherein when the locking slider is in the disengaged position, the outer helmet shell is removable from the inner helmet and the mounting component.
1. A helmet assembly comprising:
an outer helmet shell;
an inner helmet; and
a mounting assembly, the mounting assembly comprising:
a mounting component integrated with the inner helmet;
an anchor having extending portions configured to extend through the outer helmet shell and into the mounting component; and
a locking slider configured to slide into the mounting component when the locking slider is in an engaged position and slide out of the mounting component when the locking slider is in a disengaged position;
wherein when the locking slider is in the engaged position, the locking slider is configured to secure the outer helmet shell to the inner helmet; and
wherein when the locking slider is in the disengaged position, the outer helmet shell is removable from the inner helmet and the mounting component, and the extending portions are removable from the mounting component.
2. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the mounting assembly is configured to provide separation of the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet when the mounting assembly is subjected to greater than a threshold tensile load.
2. The helmet assembly of claim 1, wherein the mounting assembly is configured to provide separation of the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet when the mounting assembly is subjected to greater than a threshold tensile load.
3. The assembly of claim 2, wherein the mounting assembly comprises a weak point, wherein the weak point is configured to fracture when subjected to at least the threshold tensile load.
3. The helmet assembly of claim 2, wherein at least one of the mounting component, the anchor, or the locking slider is configured to fracture at a weak point when subjected to at least the threshold tensile load.
5. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the locking slider comprises a transverse locking slider that is configured to substantially span a width of the mounting component when the locking slider is in the engaged position.
4. The helmet assembly of claim 1, wherein the locking slider comprises a transverse locking slider that is configured to substantially span a width of the mounting component when the locking slider is in the engaged position.
6. The assembly of claim 5, wherein the mounting component comprises a channel configured to receive the locking slider when the locking slider is in the engaged position.
5. The helmet assembly of claim 4, wherein the mounting component comprises a channel configured to receive the locking slider when the locking slider is in the engaged position.
8. The assembly of claim 1, further comprising: an anchor; wherein an extending portion of the anchor is configured to pass through the outer helmet shell via a through hole, wherein the extending portion of the anchor is configured to be received by the mounting component, and wherein the locking slider is configured to retain the extending portion of the anchor within the mounting component when in the engaged position.
7. The helmet assembly of claim 1,
wherein the outer helmet shell comprises through holes,
wherein the extending portions of the anchor are configured to pass through the outer helmet shell via the through holes, wherein the extending portions of the anchor are configured to be received by the mounting component, and wherein the locking slider is configured to retain the extending portions of the anchor within the mounting component when in the engaged position.
9. The assembly of claim 8, wherein the anchor comprises: the extending portion of the anchor; and a retention portion; wherein the retention portion is larger than the through hole such that the retention portion is configured to reside on one side of the through hole while the extending portion is configured to extend through the through hole for retention by the locking slider once received by the mounting component.
8. The helmet assembly of claim 7, wherein the anchor further comprises:
a retention portion;
wherein the retention portion is larger than the through holes such that the retention portion is configured to reside on one side of the through holes while the extending portions are configured to extend through the through holes for retention by the locking slider once received by the mounting component.
10. The assembly of claim 9, wherein the extending portion comprises a plurality of hooks.
9. The helmet assembly of claim 8, wherein the extending portions comprise a plurality of hooks.
11. The assembly of claim 10, wherein the locking slider comprises an anchor trapping region, wherein the anchor trapping region includes a recess configured to partially surround an upper portion of at least one of said plurality of hooks and a retention surface configured to be positioned above a lower portion of said at least one of said plurality of hooks so as to limit an ability to extract said at least one of said plurality of hooks from the mounting portion when the locking slider is in the engaged position.
10. The helmet assembly of claim 9, wherein the locking slider comprises an anchor trapping region, wherein the anchor trapping region includes a recess configured to partially surround an upper portion of at least one of said plurality of hooks and a retention surface configured to be positioned above a lower portion of said at least one of said plurality of hooks so as to limit an ability to extract said at least one of said plurality of hooks from the mounting component when the locking slider is in the engaged position.
15. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the locking slider includes a notch or a protuberance configured to interface with the mounting portion to hold the locking slider in the engaged position until the locking slider is subjected to more than a threshold force to disengage the locking slider.
14. The helmet assembly of claim 1, wherein the locking slider includes a notch or a protuberance configured to interface with the mounting component to hold the locking slider in the engaged position until the locking slider is subjected to more than a threshold force to disengage the locking slider.
16. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer helmet shell comprises a full brim fire helmet, a full brim construction helmet, or a cap style construction helmet.
15. The helmet assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer helmet shell comprises a full brim fire helmet.
17. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the inner helmet comprises an inner portion that is configured to conform to a head of a user, wherein the inner helmet further comprises an outer portion that comprises a shock absorbing material.
16. The helmet assembly of claim 1, wherein the inner helmet comprises an inner portion that is configured to conform to a head of a user, wherein the inner helmet further comprises an outer portion that comprises a shock absorbing material.
18. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the mounting component is permanently attached to the inner helmet.
17. The helmet assembly of claim 1, wherein the mounting component is permanently attached to the inner helmet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0043126 to Morel is directed to a helmet assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732