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 amendments filed with the written response received on June 5, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 13-16 have been amended; claims 1-10, 12 and 18-20 are canceled; and claims 21-34 have been added.
However, claims 21 and 32-33 are withdrawn, by Examiner, from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 21 is drawn to relative angles of the groove, but the angle of the first tongue is relative to a lower edge of the first accessory. However, this limitation is only disclosed in para. 0048 and Fig. 3, both of which are referring to the accessory of the brim 12 and the main brim member 72 which are structures of non-elected Species A and the specification does not disclose the angle of the first tongue relative to a lower edge of the eye shield accessory of elected Species B which is a curved lower edge. Therefore claim 21 is withdrawn. Claim 32 is drawn a second accessory, however, elected Species B depicts a helmet with one accessory, the eye shield accessory and therefore claim 32 and its dependents are withdrawn from further consideration. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that if allowable subject matter is indicated, withdrawn claims may be rejoined if they require all the limitations of an allowable claim and therefore suggests amending the withdrawn claims along with examined claims during prosecution.
Accordingly, claims 11, 13-17, 21-34 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 11, 13-17, 22-31, and 34.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed March 5, 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the Abstract.
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 must be shown or the feature(s) cancelled from the claim(s):
the inner surface of the groove, the locking portion of the groove, and the locking portion recessing farther away from the helmet shell than other portions of the inner surface (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes these structures are not specifically called out, clearly labeled, or clearly shown in the drawings. Further, Examiner indicated in the interview on May 21, 2026 that amendments to the drawings would be required to specifically and clearly point to each of the claimed structures;
an exposed portion of the flexible lock member being positioned outside of the groove (claim 24) as in the elected embodiment of Species B (Figs. 1 B, and 5-8), the flexible lock member is not pointed out and therefore it is not known what portion of the attachment member is the flexible lock member.
No new matter should be entered.
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
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: Claim 11 recites, “the locking portion recesses farther away from the helmet shell than other portions of the inner surface” however such a limitation has not been disclosed in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 should recite, “the flexible lock member is configured to completely pass over the locking portion of the inner surface of the groove, and is allowed to flex back toward [[its]] a neutral state, and upon the first tongue be completely advanced into the groove of the first attachment portion, and with the flexible lock member is flexed to [[its]] the neutral state….”
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:
“locking portion” in claims 11, 23, and 25 as it recites a generic placeholder “portion” with the function of locking without sufficient structure to perform the locking;
“fastening device” in claim 26 as it recites the generic placeholder “device” with the function of fastening without a sufficient structure to perform the fastening.
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(a)
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 11 and 26 (and claims 13-17, 22-25, 27-31, and 34 at least for depending from the rejected claims) 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 11 recites, “locking portion” which has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), but the structure of the locking portion is unknown as it has not been clearly described in the specification or pointed to in the drawings. Para. 0049 recites, “The tongue 84 may include a generally stationary peripheral portion 88, and a flexible lock member 90 that is moveable relative to the peripheral portion 88. The accessory connector 82 and the attachment portion 68, 70 of the universal attachment body 66 may be configured such that as the tongue 84 is inserted into the groove 86 of the attachment portion 68, 70, the flexible lock member 90 passes over a locking portion of an inner surface, which causes the flexible lock member 90 to flex away from that inner surface. As the tongue 84 advances into the groove 86, the flexible lock member 90 completely passes over the locking portion, and is allowed to flex back toward its neutral state. At this point, the tongue 84 may be completely advanced into the groove 86, and with the flexible lock member 90 flexed toward its neutral state, the locking portion of the inner surface interfaces with the flexible lock member 90 to prevent retraction of the tongue 84 from the groove 86 (e.g., the tongue 84 is locked within the groove 86). When the tongue 84 is completely inserted into the groove 86, an exposed portion of the flexible lock member 90 is positioned outside of the groove 86.” As such the tongue 84 includes a flexible lock member 90, however 90 is only pointed to in the Fig. 3 which is shown as part of the brim 12A and not the tongue 84. Therefore, because the flexible lock member masses over the locking portion, but the flexible lock member is only shown as an exposed portion on the brim, it is unknown what the structure of the locking portion is and therefore the limitation fails to comply with the requirement for written description.
Claim 11 recites, “the locking portion recesses farther away from the helmet shell than other portions of the inner surface”. Such a limitation was not disclosed in the written description and cannot be gleaned from the drawings. First, the locking portion has not been specifically pointed to thereby making it unknown what structure in the drawings the claim is referring to. Further, the drawings only show a cross section of the helmet and universal attachment body at the groove, therefore the remainder of the structure of the inner surface of the groove is not shown and thus it is not discernable whether or not the locking portion recesses farther away than the other portions or not. Therefore the limitation fails to comply with the requirement for written description. Examiner notes that the rejection could be overcome by specifically showing the locking portion and reciting the structure of the locking portion.
Claim 26 recites, “a fastening device” which is shown in the drawings as structure 100 where a circular dial-like structure is shown. However, this limitation has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of fastening. The specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail. The fastening device is only disclosed in para. 0052 which recites, “The eye shield accessory 12B may include an eye shield 96, a shield mount body 98, and a fastening device 100” and para. 0053 which recites, “The openings in the lateral portions 106, the shield attachment portion 102, and the fastening device 100 may be aligned to connect the eye shield 96, the shield mount body 98 and the fastening device 100”, but since the structure of the fastening device is not described and now shown beyond a circular part, it is unknown from the structure shown how the fastening device performs the act of fastening. Examiner notes, in order to overcome this rejection, Applicant could amend to recite “a fastener” instead of “fastening device”.
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 11, 23, and 25-26 (and 13-17, 22, 24, 27-31, and 34 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 limitation “locking portion” in claims 11, 23, and 25 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The locking portion is not specifically pointed to in the drawing, and it’s structure has not been described in the written description, thus it is unknown as to the metes and bounds of the claim and when infringement would occur. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 11 recites, “the locking portion recesses farther away from the helmet shell than other portions of the inner surface”. As this limitation is written such that “recesses” is a verb, it is unclear as to its meaning. Is recessing an action performed by the locking portion where applicant is limiting the helmet system to what it does rather than what it is, and if is the verb “recesses” used “to mean to suspend or defer for a recess” or is it used to mean “to place in a recesses”? Otherwise, is Applicant attempting to claim that the locking portion is or has a recess? Examiner respectfully suggests amending to positively recite the structure of the locking portion.
Claim limitation “fastening device” in claim 26 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function of fastening. Para. 0053 recites, “The openings in the lateral portions 106, the shield attachment portion 102, and the fastening device 100 may be aligned to connect the eye shield 96, the shield mount body 98 and the fastening device 100”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform connect the eye shield, shield mount body, and the fastening device. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary sill in the art would understand what structure performs the claimed function of fastening.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 11, 13-17, 22-23, 26-31, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzzeni (US 2024/0156200) in view of Bohn (US 2020/0170329).
Regarding claim 11, Uzzeni discloses a helmet system (helmet shell of Figs. 1-3, 8-12, with attachment band of the embodiment of Figs. 15-18) comprising: a helmet shell (2) having a front portion, a pair of side portions, a rear portion, a crown portion and a lower edge extending along the front portion, the pair of side portions and the rear portion (see annotated Fig. 1); and a universal attachment body (3c) coupled to the helmet shell at one of the pair of side portions (as 3c is on a first side of 2 and 3c is on a second side of 2), the universal attachment body having a first attachment portion (see annotated Fig. 17), wherein: the first attachment portion comprises an outward facing opening and a groove extending from the outward facing opening into inside of the first attachment portion, the groove is provided with an inner surface (see annotated Fig. 17), the inner surface comprises a locking portion (see annotated Fig. 17; Examiner notes “locking portion” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and as best as can be understood by Examiner, the locking portion of the instant application is a recess and the locking portion of Uzzeni is also a recess) that is proximal to the outward facing opening, and the locking portion recesses farther away from the helmet shell than other portions of the inner surface (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 17).
Uzzeni des not expressly disclose wherein the universal attachment body is detachably coupled to the helmet shell.
Bohn reaches a helmet accessory attachment rail wherein the attachment body (200) is detachably coupled (via 234) to the helmet shell (102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the universal attachment body detachably coupled to the helmet shell of Uzzeni as taught by Bohn in order “to allow free installation and removal of the accessory attachment rail to and from the helmet” (see para. 0082 of Bohn), and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 13, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses further comprising: a first accessory (combination of 3a and 4) having a first connector (3a1) adapted to be detachably engageable with the first attachment portion of the universal attachment body (see para. 0098), wherein the first connector includes a first tongue (as 3a1 can be considered a tongue, best seen in Figs. 15 and 17) insertable into the groove of the first attachment portion (see para. 0098 and annotated Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 14, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses further comprising a mount (2b3) integrated into the helmet shell (as it is part of 2, see Fig. 17) and configured to be detachably engageable with a helmet mounted accessory (3b, via 2b3, see para. 0109).
Regarding claim 15, the modified system of Uzzeni wherein the universal attachment body is coupled to the helmet shell via a mechanical fastener (as modified, via 234 of Bohn).
Regarding claim 16, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses wherein the first accessory (combination of 3a and 4) is an eye visor (as 4 is an eye visor).
Regarding claim 17, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses further comprising an inner pad (101, considered a pad as it can be made of polystyrene and provides impact resistance) coupled to the helmet shell and extendable over at least a portion of an inner surface of the helmet shell (as understood from Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 22, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses all the limitations of claims 11 and 13 above but does not expressly disclose wherein the first tongue includes a stationary peripheral portion and a flexible lock member that is moveable relative to the stationary peripheral portion.
Bohn teaches a helmet with accessory attachment rail wherein the first tongue (see Figs. 5B) includes a stationary peripheral portion (lip of 120, see para. 0085) and a flexible lock member (140) that is moveable relative to the stationary peripheral portion (as understood from para. 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first tongue of first accessory of the modified system Uzzeni, to have a stationary portion and flexible lock member, as taught by Bohn, in order to allow for a quick releasing of the accessory from the helmet.
Regarding claim 23, the modify system of Uzzeni discloses wherein: upon the first tongue being inserted from the outward facing opening of the first attachment portion into the groove of the first attachment portion, the flexible lock member is configured to pass over the locking portion of the inner surface of the groove, which causes the flexible lock member to flex away from the inner surface, upon the first tongue being further advanced into the groove of the first attachment portion, the flexible lock member is configured to completely pass over the locking portion of the inner surface of the groove, and is allowed to flex back toward its neutral state, and upon the first tongue be completely advanced into the groove of the first attachment portion, and with the flexible lock member is flexed to its neutral state, the locking portion of the inner surface of the groove interfaces with the flexible lock member to lock the first tongue within the groove (as understood from para. 0085 of Bohn and when added to the structure of Uzzeni, the structure would function the same).
Regarding claim 26, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses wherein: the first accessory (3a/4) is an eye shield (as can be seen in Fig. 9) including a shield mount body (3a), a fastening device (8; Examiner notes fastening device has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the fastening device 8 of Uzzeni is at least a functional equivalent of the fastening device 100 the instant application as it fastens the lateral portion to the shield attachment portion) and a lateral portion (44a), the shield mount body includes the first connector (3a1) and a shield attachment portion (5), and the shield attachment portion, the lateral portion and the fastening device are aligned to connect together (as seen in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 27, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses wherein upon the first connector being locked in the groove of the first attachment portion (as seen in Fig. 18), the shield attachment portion (5) resides outside of (as seen in Fig. 11), and extends over a portion of the first attachment portion (at least in one line of sight, 5 extends over a portion of the first attachment portion, as understood from Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 28, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses wherein the first attachment portion is a forward attachment portion (as understood from annotated Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 29, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses wherein the forward attachment portion extends towards the front portion of the helmet shell (as understood from annotated Fig. 17).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, it has not been positively recited that the first attachment portion must have be rearward attachment portion or an upward attachment portion, and therefore the subject matter of claims 30 and 31 are hypothetical in the event the first attachment portion is either a rearward attachment portion or an upward attachment portion, and therefore as the attachment portion is a forward attachment portion, claims 30 and 31 are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 34, the modified system of Uzzeni discloses further comprising another universal attachment body (3d of Uzzeni) detachably coupled (via 234 of Bohn) to the helmet shell at the other of the pair of side portions (as seen in Fig. 2 of Uzzeni), the another universal attachment body having at least one of a forward attachment portion, an upward attachment portion and a rearward attachment portion (as 3d have 31d, 32d, and 36d).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 (Uzzeni)
PNG
media_image2.png
700
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17 (Uzzeni)
PNG
media_image3.png
534
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5B (Bohn)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 24-25 are over the prior art of record as none of them, alone or in combination, disclose the limitations of claims 11, 13, 22-23 and wherein an exposed portion of the flexible lock member is positioned outside of the groove of the first attachment portion. The closest prior art is Uzzeni and Bohn. However neither Uzzeni or Bohn teach wherein an exposed portion of the flexible lock member is positioned outside of the groove of the first attachment portion. Modifying Uzzeni or Bohn to have the claimed structure would be hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s own disclosure, therefore the claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 5, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 11-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights