DETAILED ACTION
Claims 26-45 are pending. Claims 1-25 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1B, 2A and 3A in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 45, drawn to unelected species 1E is withdrawn from consideration. The only embodiment with a headband is that described in Fig. 14, and thus claim 45 which includes a headband is withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 13, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Foreign cite numbers 23, 24, and 25 do not include a copy, and the parent cases similarly do not include a copy. Additionally, the IDS includes no place for the Examiner’s signature. The Examiner has put their signature “on the final page of reference citations” in accordance with MPEP 609.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 28 does not end in a period. Claim 40 does not include a parenthesis before the word “New”. 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. The terms “means facilitating insertion”, “means facilitating rotation” are interpreted as “hinges”. “Means for adjusting a distance” includes a slide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites “a tooth and embedded magnet” configured to be received in a rail depression. This concept is not found in the specification or figures.
Claim 29 recites “the rail includes a first track and a second track”. This concept is not found in the disclosure. Multiple tracks are not discussed.
Claim 30 recites that the second track is at an angle with respect to the first track. This concept is not found in the disclosure.
Claim 31 recites that the first and second track are coupled to form a continuous track. This concept is not found in the disclosure.
Claim 33 recites that the mounting surface is configured to couple a centralized power source. This concept is not found in the disclosure. A power source is never discussed.
Claim 34 recites that the rails include grooves along the surfaces to receive cables. No grooves for cables are discussed in the disclosure.
Claim 35 recites that the communication mount includes contacts coupled to a node on the rail. Neither contacts nor nodes are present in the disclosure.
Claim 36 recites that the communication mount includes electrical contact or data contacts. No electrical contacts are present in the disclosure.
Claim 37 recites that the communication mount and other components provide an electrical or data connection between notes and the accessory. No electrical contacts or nodes are present in the disclosure.
Claim 40 recites “a tooth and embedded magnet” configured to be received in a rail depression. This concept is not found in the specification or figures.
These claims are only rejected under §112(a), however, there does not appear to be a manner to rectify the issues.
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 26-44 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 26 and 38 recite “an accessory mounted on articulating arm assembly”. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. It is unclear what constitutes the “articulating arm assembly” and how is this assembly different than the adjustable arm. Furthermore, the specification does not assist in understanding what is meant by the articulating arm assembly”.
Claims 28 and 40 recite “a tooth and embedded magnet configured to be received within a corresponding rail depression”. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase because there is no disclosure to provide context for the terms. Where are the tooth and embedded magnet? Are they in the rail depression? Does the tooth include an embedded magnet, and the assembly is configured to be received in the rail depression? Are the tooth and embedded magnet part of anything, or are they floating components?
Claims 42-45 recite “the articulating arm assembly of claim” X, but the claims from which they depend are “a safety helmet”. Thus it is unclear if the claims are only limiting a portion of the claims from which they depend or if they are limiting the entire helmet. The examiner is interpreting these as limiting the helmet.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 41 recites “overlying a wearer’s ear” which thus requires a user’s ear. The examiner suggests “configured to overly a user’s ear”. The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 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.
Claims 26, 27, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolla (US 20040218776) in view of Prendergast (US 20040244099).
Regarding claim 26, Rolla describes a communication mount (support 4, support 9, arm 6, hinge 7a, 7b, mounting support 12) for coupling an ear accessory to a helmet, the communication mount comprising:
an adjustable arm (6) comprising a first end and a second end and providing a distance between an accessory mounted on articulating arm assembly and a rail (4) (see annotated Fig. 1);
a mounting surface on the first end of the adjustable arm (see annotated Fig. 1); and
a mount bracket (12) on the second end of the adjustable arm for receiving the ear accessory rotatable in at least one direction relative the communication mount (see Fig. 1 showing ear cup 3 is rotatable),
wherein the arm is rotatable about an axis (see Fig. 2 showing the arm is rotatable), such that when the mounting surface is coupled to the rail, the arm may be rotated without the mounting surface being decoupled from the rail.
Rolla does not explicitly describe that the mounting surface is shaped to correspond to a track of a rail, but rather states that the mount bracket (movable piece 5) is mounted to setting support (4, rail) but does not show how it is attached.
In related art Prendergast describes attaching a mount (block 38) is attached to a rail (receiving area 361).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the setting support 4 to include the recess and likewise to include the corresponding face on movable piece 5 in order to permit the support to have an adequate junction that is easy to utilize while also permitting the support to be removable (Rolla, para. 0059).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
471
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Rolla as modified describes the communication mount of claim 26, wherein the track has a dovetail cross-sectional shape (is dovetail, Prendergast) when viewed transverse or perpendicular to a length of the track (when viewed perpendicular to the length which is perpendicular to the vertical axis, is it a dovetail).
Regarding claim 38 Rolla describes a safety helmet assembly (helmet 1) comprising:
a communication mount (support 4, support 9, arm 6, hinge 7a, 7b, mounting support 12) for coupling an ear accessory to a helmet, the communication mount comprising:
an adjustable arm (6) comprising a first end and a second end and providing a distance between an accessory mounted on articulating arm assembly and a rail (4) (see annotated Fig. 1);
a mounting surface on the first end of the adjustable arm (see annotated Fig. 1); and
a mount bracket (12) on the second end of the adjustable arm for receiving the ear accessory rotatable in at least one direction relative the communication mount (see Fig. 1 showing ear cup 3 is rotatable),
wherein the arm is rotatable about an axis (see Fig. 2 showing the arm is rotatable), such that when the mounting surface is coupled to the rail, the arm may be rotated without the mounting surface being decoupled from the rail.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
471
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 44, Rolla as modified describes the articulating arm assembly of claim 38, wherein the communication mount comprises means for adjusting a distance (positioning means 6a, 6b, see Fig. 1 which depicts a slide between the components) between the ear accessory and a terminal edge of the helmet.
Claim 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolla (US 20040218776) in view of Prendergast (US 20040244099) and Arai et al. (US 3911496).
Regarding claim 39, Rolla as modified describes the safety helmet assembly of claim 38 but does not explicitly describe further comprising at least one aperture aligning with at least one existing through-hole in the helmet for facilitating common affixation of the communication mount and retention straps thereto.
In related art for helmets, Arai describes at least one aperture (see annotated Fig 4, aperture around stud 2) aligning with at least one existing through-hole in the helmet for facilitating common affixation of the communication mount (4) and retention straps (B) thereto.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify to provide the common attachment point for the mount and the straps as depicted in Arai in order to provide convenient attachment of components (Arai, col. 1, ll. 34-39) while reducing the number of components in the helmet.
PNG
media_image3.png
352
321
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 41 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolla (US 20040218776) in view of Prendergast (US 20040244099) and Simpson et al. (US 3197785).
Regarding claim 41, Rolla as modified describes the safety helmet assembly claim 38 but does not explicitly describe further comprising a bulge or protrusion on a side thereof to form a cavity therein, the cavity extending to a terminal edge of the helmet and overlying a wearer's ear.
In related art for helmets, Simpson describes a bulge or protrusion on a side thereof to form a cavity therein (see annotated Fig. 2), the cavity extending to a terminal edge of the helmet and overlying a wearer's ear.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the helmet of Rolla to include the cavity of Simpson in order to protect a greater amount of the user’s head. That is, the helmet of Simpson extends further downward, and thus provides greater protection as compared to Rolla.
PNG
media_image4.png
309
232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42, Rolla as modified describes the articulating arm assembly claim 41 comprising a means facilitating insertion (see annotated Fig. 1 of Rolla below) of the ear accessory into the cavity and its removal therefrom around the terminal edge.
PNG
media_image5.png
588
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolla (US 20040218776) in view of Prendergast (US 20040244099) and Beguin (US 3461463)
Regarding claim 43, Rolla as modified describes the articulating arm assembly of claim 38 but does not explicitly describe further comprising means facilitating rotation of the articulating arm to place the ear accessory behind the helmet.
In related art, Beguin describes means facilitating rotation (bolt 52 and connection to accessory 12b, thereby forming a hinge) of the articulating arm to place the ear accessory behind the helmet.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the helmet of Rolla to include the rotatable hinge of Beguin in order to permit a rearward rotation for convenient storage of and less application or removal of the helmet prior to and following application of the protective cups (Beguin, col. 5, ll. 61-68). In this modification the hinge can rotate forward and backwards while also being able to fold as in Rolla such that the user may pick which storage method is most convenient for them.
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolla (US 20040218776) in view of Prendergast (US 20040244099) and Trevitt (WO 9402043)
Regarding claim 33, Rolla as modified describes the communication mount of claim 26, but does not explicitly describe wherein the mounting surface is configured to couple a centralized power source that provides power to the ear accessory coupled to the rail.
In related art for helmets, Trevitt describes wherein the mounting surface is configured to couple a centralized power source (cable 9 extends to battery, cable 9 provides power to radio 4) that provides power to the ear accessory coupled to the rail (power extends through the mounting surface to the ear muff, see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the helmet of Rolla to include the power source arrangement of Trevitt in order to permit communication to others without the requirement of using a handheld component which may be detrimental to the user’s task (see Trevitt, p. 1, ll. 18-25).
Claims 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolla (US 20040218776) in view of Prendergast (US 20040244099) and Wikel et al. (US 20060057972).
Regarding claim 35, Rolla as modified describes the communication mount of claim 26 but does not explicitly describe further comprising contacts coupled to a node on the rail.
In related art for helmets, Wikel describes contacts (audio plug 105) coupled to a node (audio output and input jack, para. 0034) on the rail (housing 900).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the helmet of Rolla to include the audio plugs in order to permit the user to communicate with others while using the helmet (see abstract, Wikel).
Regarding claim 36, Rolla as modified describes the communication mount of claim 35, wherein the contacts include electrical contacts and/ or data contacts (are electrical contacts).
Regarding claim 37, Rolla as modified describes the communication mount of claim 35, wherein the communication mount, the mount bracket, and the mounting surface provide at least one of an electrical and data connection between a corresponding node (plug 115) and an accessory (speaker 115) attached to mounting bracket when the contacts are coupled to the node.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References are cited that include various connection mechanisms as well as various helmets with earcups or muffs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732