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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, including claims 1-16 and 20 in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 3, “the risk” is read as “a risk”.
In claim 12, line 2, “the presence” is read as “a presence”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 20 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 1 recites “a first side arm extending from the object to a first helmet rail interface”, “a second side arm extending from the object to a second helmet rail interface”, “a bottom arm extending from the object to a helmet rim interface” and “a worm gear housed within a cavity in the object”. It is unclear “the object”, “a first helmet rail interface”, “a second helmet rail interface” and “a helmet rim interface” are structures of the system in the claim or not because the limitations “the object”, “a first helmet rail interface”, “a second helmet rail interface” and “a helmet rim interface” are not positively claimed in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a worm gear housed within a cavity in the object, configured to interface with threads on the corresponding arm to adjust its length relative to the object”. It is unclear what structure the Applicant wants to refer to by “its length”.
Claim 3 recites “a hook worm gear” in lines 1-2. It is unclear “a hook worm gear” is the same or different from “a worm gear” in claim 1. For the purpose of applying art, “a hook worm gear” is interpreted to be the same as “a worm gear” in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “a worm gear cavity” in lines 3-4. It is unclear “a worm gear cavity” is the same or different from “a cavity” in claim 1. For the purpose of applying art, “a worm gear cavity” is interpreted to be the same as “a cavity” in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the battery module”, “the HBB interface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “a snag guard positioned between the object and the helmet”. It is unclear “the object” and “the helmet” are structures of the system or not because “the object” and “the helmet” are not positively claimed.
Claim 10 recites “tie-down straps, each anchored at one end to a helmet rail and at the other end to the object”. It is unclear “the object” and “a helmet rail” are structures of the system or not because “the object” and “a helmet rail” are not positively claimed.
Claim 11 recites “the tie-down straps are anchored between the helmet rail and a SIM base of the object”. It is unclear “a SIM base of the object” and “the helmet rail” are structures of the system or not because “a SIM base of the object” and “the helmet rail” are not positively claimed.
Further, it is unclear what structures of “a SIM base” are and/or what “SIM” stands for.
Claim 16 recites “to retain a bungee cord”. It is unclear “a bungee cord” is a structure of the system or not. For the benefit of applying art, “to retain a bungee cord” is functional language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim 20 recites “the system of claim 1, further comprising bungee retention cavities formed on the object and configured to receive bungee interface parts attached to ends of a bungee cord”. It is unclear “bungee retention cavities”, “the object”, “bungee interface” and “a bungee cord” are structures of the system or not as the limitations are not positively claimed. For the purpose of applying art, the limitations are interpreted as functions of the system.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havola (US 2020/0008508) in view of Franzino (US 2022/0071336).
Regarding claim 1, Havola teaches a system for attaching an object to a helmet (fig. 4A), comprising: a first side arm (108) extending from the object (106) to a first helmet rail interface (fig. 2, rail 104); a second side arm (108) extending from the object to a second helmet rail interface (fig. 2, rail 104); a bottom arm (fig. 4A, a strap with a fixing arrangement 402) extending from the object to a helmet rim interface.
Havola does not teach a worm gear adjustment system integrated with each arm as in the claim.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Franzino teaches a worm gear adjustment system (fig. 19) integrated with each arm, each system including: a worm gear (fig. 19, adjustment member 61) housed within a cavity (fig. 19, boss 59) in the object, configured to interface with threads on the corresponding arm (fig. 19, para. [0096], channel 63 on the upper part of rail 12 has threads) to adjust its length relative to the object; and an anti-rotation mechanism (fig. 19, para. [0096], a head of the adjustment member 61 cannot pass through the opening in the mounting boss 59) configured to resist rotation of the worm gear to maintain a selected adjustment position.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine each arm of the system of Havola with a worm gear adjustment system as taught by Franzino for the benefit of moving the mounting device relative to the power source mount to adjust the mounting device to a size of the helmet (Franzino, para. [0096]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Havola-Franzino teaches the anti-rotation mechanism comprises a hook worm gear (Franzino, fig. 19, element 61), and a compliant member (Franzino, fig. 19, outer wall of element 59) disposed between the hook worm gear and an interior wall of a worm gear cavity (Franzino, fig. 19, inner wall of element 59), the compliant member configured to generate frictional resistance to rotation of the hook worm gear (Franzino, fig. 19).
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Havola-Franzino teaches the worm gear adjustment system allows for independent adjustment of the first side arm relative to the first helmet rail interface; the second side arm relative to the second helmet rail interface; the bottom arm relative to the helmet rim interface (Havola, para. [0042]; Franzino, fig. 19).
Regarding claim 16, the modified structure Havola-Franzino teaches the bottom arm comprises a hook (Havola, fig. 4A, hook 402) configured to engage the helmet rim as a backup securing mechanism and to retain a bungee cord (a bungee cord can be attached to the hook 402).
Regarding claim 20, the modified structure Havola-Franzino teaches bungee retention cavities formed on the object and configured to receive bungee interface parts attached to ends of a bungee cord (Havola, fig. 9D, cavities in the object 106 to receive cords 908b).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havola (US 2020/0008508) and Franzino (US 2022/0071336), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore (US 2023/0046229).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Havola-Franzino teaches a battery pack attachable to the object (Havola, para. [0080], [0081]).
The modified structure Havola-Franzino does not teach a release lever for engagement and disengagement and an integrated battery level indicator activated upon compression of the release lever, displaying battery status via LED lights.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moore teaches a release lever (fig. 10, lever 205) for engagement and disengagement (para. [0058]) and an integrated battery level indicator (fig. 10, indicator 255) activated upon compression of the release lever, displaying battery status via LED lights (fig. 5, para. [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Havola-Franzino with a release lever and an integrated battery level indicator as taught by Moore for the benefit of providing management for the power components of the helmet (Moore, para. [0006]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havola (US 2020/0008508) and Franzino (US 2022/0071336), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teetzel (US 2024/0356143).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure Havola-Franzino does not teach an HBB (Helmet Battery Bracket) attachment interface as in the claim.
However, Teetzel teaches an HBB attachment interface (fig. 7, module 132), comprising: a latch interface (fig. 54, assembly 540) with torsion springs (fig. 54, para. [0138], springs 552) for securing an accessory to the object or to the helmet; a catch interface (fig. 17, socket 248) with locating pads and catch feet (fig. 17, fastener elements 256) for precise alignment; a sealing interface to ensure environment protection; and electrical contact points (fig. 10, contacts 216) facilitating power or data transmission between the object and attached accessories.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Havola-Franzino with an HBB attachment interface as taught by Teetzel for the benefit of providing a battery attachment system for a powered helmet mount assembly.
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Havola-Franzino-Teetzel teaches the catch interface further comprises inner and outer locating pads (Teetzel, figs. 17, inner and outer fasteners 256, 268) configured to align the battery module with the HBB interface prior to engagement of the latch interface (Teetzel, para. [0140]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havola (US 2020/0008508) and Franzino (US 2022/0071336), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Connell (US 2021/0030098).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure Havola-Franzino does not teach tie-down straps, each anchored at one end to a helmet rail and at the other end to the object, adjustable in length to accommodate different helmet sizes and ensure a secure fit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, O’Connell teaches tie-down straps (fig. 1, straps 36), each anchored at one end to a helmet rail and at the other end to the object, adjustable in length to accommodate different helmet sizes and ensure a secure fit (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Havola-Franzino with tie-down straps as taught by O’Connell for the benefit of laterally stabilizing the object and helping retain the object during use (O’Connell, para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure Havola-Franzino-O’Connell teaches the tie-down straps are anchored between the helmet rail and a base of the object to secure the attachment system to the helmets with or without hook and loop fabric (O’Connell, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Havola-Franzino-O’Connell teaches the tie-down straps area configured to interface with helmets regardless of the presence of hook and loop fabric attachments (O’Connell, fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 8-9 and 14-15 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. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights