DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 11-20 have been previously withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-10 are being treated on the merits. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 05/05/2026.
Specification
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:
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "rotatably coupling the screw element to the outer shell";
In claim 2, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the cam profile comprises one or more grooves to decrease a width of the cam profile to provide resistive movement to the protrusion of the screw element".
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being which renders the claim indefinite. for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "snap plug". The term "snap plug" is not a common term in the garment art, and it is unclear what is being referred to. Is a "snap plug" configured to have a snap fitting feature and can be plugged into a position? The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the feature, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This rejection has been set forth in the Office action mailed 02/05/2026. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted "snap plug" as a coupling structure in the safety helmet.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "cam profile", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "cam profile" is not a common term in the garment art, and it is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be a track that allows an item to move therethrough.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a knob comprising a cavity, the knob comprising inner threads within the cavity, wherein the first portion of the screw element is positioned within the first aperture of the snap plug, the second aperture of the crown, and the cavity of the knob thereby rotatably coupling the screw element to the outer shell", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the structures are configured to rotatably couple the screw element to the outer shell. Where is the knob located? Which structure is the knob coupled to? Is the screw element just "positioned" within the cavity of the knob, or rotatably or fixedly coupled to the cavity of the knob? What is the function of the knob? In addition, what are the other configurations, such as the first aperture of the snap plug, the second aperture of the crown that allow a rotatable coupling of the screw element to the outer shell? One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the claimed features. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Applicant is reminded that the examiner's interpretations of unclear limitations in the 112(b) section have been made per broadest reasoning interpretation, and is for the purpose of applying prior art, and does not necessarily constitute a suggestion. Applicant should make proper claim amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
Status of Claims
Pending claims 1-10 are currently free of prior art rejections. However, the claims should not be construed as reciting allowable subject matter. It is noted that all the pending claims are subjected to 112(b) rejections as discussed above; and substantive amendments to the claims may result in prior-art-based rejections in a future Office action.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. In addition, Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered and addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that the term "cam profile" is "thoroughly defined" in Applicant's disclosure and claims as being curved pathway to engage and control travel of the protrusion, and further, one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the art would readily understand the cam profile as being a mechanical groove or channel configured to guide a follower (e.g., a protrusion).
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, nowhere in the instant specification has defined the "cam profile" as "being curved pathway to engage and control travel of the protrusion". Second, Applicant appears to be stating that "cam file" is equal to a mechanical groove or channel configured to guide a follower. However, the term "cam profile" is not a common term in the garment art. In addition, a "profile" does not necessarily refer to a groove or a channel even in mechanical. Per the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term "profile" is defined as "a representation of something in outline", "an outline seen or represented in sharp relief: contour" or "a side or sectional elevation". None of the above meanings refers to a groove or a channel. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As a final note, with respect to the new limitations in the amended claims, Applicant is advised that the new limitations must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. Even if the claimed subject matter finds support in the drawings, the meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import (See MPEP 608.01(o)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights