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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonanno (3,309,691).
With respect to claim 1, Bonanno teaches a headlamp assembly for attachment to a helmet (Fig. 1), the helmet (20) comprising a shell defining a front portion (at 21), a rear portion (portion of 20 opposite of 21), two lateral portions (portions of 20 at 22) separating the front portion from the rear portion (Fig. 1), the headlamp assembly comprising: a base plate (top surface of 20 including sockets for 25) comprising a first end and an opposite second end, wherein the base plate defines a longitudinal axis extending between the first end and the second end and a transverse axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), wherein the base plate is configured to be attached to the shell with the first end of the base plate located at the front portion of the shell (Fig. 1); a housing (“housing” in column 2, lines 42-44) releasably coupled with the base plate (via 25), the housing defining a top side (27) spaced apart from the base plate (Fig. 2), a first lateral side (Fig. 1), an opposite second lateral side (Fig. 1), and a front side (33), the front side defining an aperture (column 2, lines 53-56), and wherein the front side is located at the first end of the base plate (Fig. 1); and a headlamp (34) removably disposed within the housing and oriented to emit light through the aperture away from the headlamp assembly (column 2, lines 53-56).
As for claim 2, Bananno teaches wherein the base plate (top surface of 20 incluing sockets for 25) defines a bottom surface and a top surface (Fig. 2), wherein the bottom surface has a first curvature corresponding to a second curvature of the exterior surface of the shell (Figs. 1-2).
As for claim 3, Bananno teaches wherein bottom edges of the first lateral side, the second lateral side, and the front side of the housing are disposed against the top surface of the base plate when the housing is releasably coupled with the base plate (Figs. 1-2).
As for claim 4, Bananno teaches wherein the housing comprises at least one tab (25) proximate the front side of the housing configured to engage at least one slot defined in the base plate (Fig. 2).
As for claim 8, Bananno teaches wherein the housing is tapered from a first portion located at the first end of the base plate to a second portion located at the second end of the base plate (Figs. 1-2).
As for claim 10, Bananno teaches wherein the housing defines a bottom side opposite the top side, and wherein the bottom side of the housing defines a headlamp receiving area (Figs. 1-2).
As for claim 12, Bananno teaches all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above.
As for claim 13, Bananno teaches further comprising a light source cover (35) removably coupled with the housing and positioned over the light source such that light emitted from the light source passes through the light source cover (Figs. 1-2).
As for claim 18, Bananno teaches all of the disclosed elements, which are assembled as claimed, thus the method is inherently taught.
As for claim 20, Bananno teaches further comprising removing the housing and headlamp from the first base plate and coupling the housing and headlamp with a second base plate (61), the second base plate having a different shape than the first base plate (Figs. 1-2 and 9-10).
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.
Claims 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bananno in view of Soto et al. (2011/0170280).
With respect to claim 14, Bananno teaches all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, except for explicitly teaching wherein the base plate comprises one or more snap fittings configured to engage one or more corresponding slots defined on the helmet (claim 14); wherein the base plate comprises one or more depending hooks configured to engage one or more corresponding projections on the helmet (claim 15).
As for claim 14, Soto also drawn to headlamp assemblies, teaches wherein the base plate (120) comprises one or more snap fittings configured to engage one or more corresponding slots defined on the helmet (20 and 21).
As for claim 15, Soto teaches wherein the base plate comprises one or more depending hooks (130) configured to engage one or more corresponding projections on the helmet (via 134; paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the snap fitting and hook of Soto in the headlamp assembly of Bananno, in order to allow for easy separation of the helmet and baseplate.
As for claim 17, Bananno teaches wherein the housing defines a first lateral side and a second lateral side and a rear side opposite the front side, wherein a housing thickness decreases from the top side toward the first lateral side, from the top side toward the second lateral side, and from the top side toward the rear side (Figs. 1-2).
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 1-5, 8, 12, 13, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/585,427 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the elements in claims 1-5, 8, 12, 13, and 18 are present in claims 1-3, 6, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/585,427.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, 11, 16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 5-7, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the housing comprises a locking member disposed on the top side of the housing and rotationally coupled with at least one tab disposed proximate a bottom side of the housing opposite the top side of the housing, the locking member movable between a first position, in which the at least one tab is aligned with a slot defined in the base plate when the housing is placed into engagement with the base plate, and a second position, in which the at least one tab interferes with the slot defined in the base plate when the housing is placed into engagement with the base plate; along with the other limiting elements of claims 1 and 5.
As for claim 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the housing further comprises a finger disposed over the aperture and configured to engage a button of the headlamp when the headlamp is disposed within the housing; along with the other limiting elements of claims 1 and 9.
As for claim 11, the prior art does not teach or suggest further comprising at least one arm rotatably coupled with a bottom side of the housing opposite the top side, the at least one arm rotatable between a first position at which the at least one arm does not overlap the headlamp receiving area and a second position at which the at least one arm overlaps the headlamp receiving area; along with other limiting elements of claims 1, 10, and 11.
As for claim 16, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the base plate comprises at least one projecting spring member configured to engage a bottom side of the housing opposite the top side when the housing is coupled with the base plate; along with the other limiting elements of claims 12 and 16.
As for claim 19, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the step of coupling a headlamp with an interior surface of the housing further comprises rotating a first arm coupled with a bottom side of the housing into engagement with the headlamp and rotating a second arm coupled with a bottom side of the housing into engagement with the headlamp; along with the other limiting elements of claims 18 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOSEPH CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-0959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-272-2399. 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.
/WILLIAM J CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 3/27/2026