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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 19/303,286, for an AVIATION HEADSET MOUNT ASSEMBLY, filed on 8/18/2025. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation “respective the end sidewall surface.” It is unclear what is meant by this term. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 2-11 and 13-18 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claims 1 and 12.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the respective end sidewall surface” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the respective end sidewall surface” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the retaining flange members" and “the respective end sidewall surface” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joss et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,823,495).
Regarding claim 12, Joss teaches aviation headset mount assembly comprising: a unitary body with: an upper end, a lower end opposing the upper end of the unitary body, and a body length separating the upper and lower ends; a rear wall having a rear surface and a front surface opposing the rear surface; and two cantilevered sidewalls each extending from the rear wall, terminating at an end sidewall surface displaced from the rear wall to define a retention channel spanning the body length, and having an arcuate shaped hook member extending outwardly from respective the end sidewall surface, with a first upper surface disposed adjacent to the end sidewall surface and oriented upward toward the upper end and a second upper surface disposed adjacent to the first upper surface and oriented toward both the end sidewall surface and rear wall, wherein the first upper surface, the second upper surface, and the respective end sidewall surface define an opening for receiving a headband of a headset.
[AltContent: textbox (Arcuate shaped hook member)]
[AltContent: textbox (Lower end)]
[AltContent: textbox (opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
464
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (End sidewall surface)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd upper surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st upper surface)][AltContent: textbox (Cantilevered sidewalls)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Rear wall)][AltContent: textbox (Upper end)]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joss et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,823,495).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Joss teaches an aviation headset mount assembly (assembly can be used to mount an “other electronic device”; col. 1, lines 14-15) comprising: a unitary body with an upper end, a lower end opposing the upper end of the unitary body, a body length separating the upper and lower ends, rear surface (back of rear wall) configured to directly couple with an internal structure of an aircraft (holes are for mounting to “other location”; col. 1, lines 13-14), a rear wall, and two cantilevered sidewalls each extending from the rear wall, terminating at an end sidewall surface to define a retention channel (area defined between cantilevered sidewalls) spanning from the upper end and toward the lower end, and having an arcuate shaped hook member extending outwardly from respective the end sidewall surface and defining an opening (area under hook member to top of end sidewall surface) between the arcuate-shaped hook member and the respective end sidewall surface, but does not teach that the end sidewall surfaces are displaced at least 1in. from the rear wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the invention of Joss where the end sidewall surfaces are displaced at least 1in. from the rear wall in order to accommodate the size and shape of the electronic devices contained therein, and further, because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
[AltContent: textbox (Arcuate shaped hook member)]
[AltContent: textbox (Lower end)]
[AltContent: textbox (opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
464
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (End sidewall surface)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd upper surface)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st upper surface)][AltContent: textbox (Cantilevered sidewalls)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Rear wall)][AltContent: textbox (Upper end)]
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Joss teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the two cantilevered sidewalls are disposed in a parallel orientation with respect to one another and are coupled to the rear wall in a substantially perpendicular orientation relative to the rear wall.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Joss teaches the assembly of claim 1, but does not teach that the at least one of the two cantilevered sidewalls define an aperture interposed thereon. The use of apertures to fasten objects together is well known in the art for providing a retention arrangement. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the invention of Joss wherein the at least one of the two cantilevered sidewalls define an aperture interposed thereon in order to fasten the assembly tot the desired electronic device.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Joss teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the arcuate-shaped hook member further comprises: a first upper surface disposed adjacent to the end sidewall surface and oriented upward toward the upper end; and a second upper surface disposed adjacent to the first upper surface and oriented toward both the end sidewall surface and rear wall, the first upper surface and the second upper surface defining the opening.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Joss teaches the assembly of claim 12, but does not teach that the end sidewall surface is displaced at least 1in. from the rear wall to define the retention channel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the invention of Joss where the end sidewall surfaces are displaced at least 1in. from the rear wall to define the retention channel in order to accommodate the size and shape of the electronic devices contained therein, and further, because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joss et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,823,495) in view of Ricard et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,419,406).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, as best understood, Joss teaches the assembly of claims 1 and 12, but does not teach that the unitary body further comprises: a clip member of an arcuate-shape, spanning from the upper end, and extending downwardly toward the lower end or that the unitary body further comprises: a clip member of an arcuate-shape, spanning from the upper end, extending downwardly toward the lower end, and including the rear surface configured to directly couple with an internal structure of an aircraft. Ricard, however, teaches a holder wherein a unitary body further comprises: a clip member (110) of an arcuate-shape, spanning from an upper end (upper end connected to RN115), and extending downwardly toward a lower end (RN 114 extends toward a lower end) or that the unitary body further comprises: a clip member of an arcuate-shape, spanning from an upper end, extending downwardly toward a lower end, and including the rear surface (rear surface of RN 111 provides stability for the clip) configured to directly couple with an internal structure of an aircraft in order to removable suspend the holder to various supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the invention of Joss wherein the unitary body further comprises: a clip member of an arcuate-shape, spanning from the upper end, and extending downwardly toward the lower end or that the unitary body further comprises: a clip member of an arcuate-shape, spanning from the upper end, extending downwardly toward the lower end, and including the rear surface configured to directly couple with an internal structure of an aircraft as a substitute for the holes and fasteners in order to provide a quick and removable connection that does not mar or scratch the supporting surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 11 and 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 325196, 8245858, 9254793, 11930914, 11419406 (mounting assemblies).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 September 12, 2026
