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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/20/2026 with respect to claim(s) 19-22, 24-29, 31-32, 35-36, 38-42, 44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 19-21, 24-29, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baty et al (US 2013/0283507 A1) in view of Giulio et al (EP 2183989 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Baty discloses a headset system for use with a helmet having one or more straps (Baty; Fig 7), the headset system comprising: a strap organizer attached to the enclosure and comprising first and second strap insert guides (Baty; Fig 7; strap organizer 220 with strap insert guides 224); and one or more fastener straps each having a first fastener surface and a second fastener surface configured to mate with each other (Baty; Fig 7; fastener strap 236 each having a first fastener surface and a second fastener surface configured to mate with each other); wherein: the one or more fastener straps are insertable into the first and second strap insert guides to form at least one back loop on the strap organizer when the first and second fastener surfaces mate (Baty; Fig 7; fastener strap 236 has strap 222 insertable into insert guide 224 to form a back loop on the part of organizer 220 on the strap organizer 236);; and the first and second fastener surfaces are configured to secure the headset assembly to the one or more helmet straps after insertion through the at least one back loop (Baty; Para [0059]; Fig 7; fastener surfaces of fastener strap 236 are configured to secure the headset assembly to the one or more helmet straps after insertion through the at least one back loop ); but do not expressly disclose a communication unit; and a headset assembly comprising: an enclosure defining a cavity configured to receive the communication unit; the communication unit mates with the enclosure via a snap fit or friction fit. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet comprising a communication unit (Giulio; Fig 1; communication unit 1); and a headset assembly comprising: an enclosure defining a cavity configured to receive the communication unit (Giulio; Fig 1; enclosure 7 with cavity 8) the communication unit mates with the enclosure via a snap fit or friction fit (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0020]; communication unit 1 mates with the enclosure 7 via a snap fit or friction fit). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 21, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein the communication unit comprises one or more user interface buttons accessible during use. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet wherein the communication unit comprises one or more user interface buttons accessible during use (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 24, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein the enclosure defines a keyhole cutout for sound transmission. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet wherein the enclosure defines a keyhole cutout for sound transmission (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 25, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 24, but do not expressly disclose wherein the communication unit comprises a speaker protrusion configured to extend through the keyhole cutout toward a user's ear. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet wherein the communication unit comprises a speaker protrusion configured to extend through the keyhole cutout toward a user's ear (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 26, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein the enclosure comprises a flexible material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet wherein the enclosure comprises a flexible material (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 27, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose further comprising a flexible enclosure overlay, wherein the enclosure comprises a rigid material defining cutouts for mating with the flexible enclosure overlay. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet further comprising a flexible enclosure overlay, wherein the enclosure comprises a rigid material defining cutouts for mating with the flexible enclosure overlay (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 28, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 27, but do not expressly disclose wherein the flexible enclosure overlay comprises protrusions positioned to mate with the cutouts. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet wherein the flexible enclosure overlay comprises protrusions positioned to mate with the cutouts (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 29, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 28, but do not expressly disclose wherein the communication unit contacts the flexible enclosure overlay via friction. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet wherein the communication unit contacts the flexible enclosure overlay via friction (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 35, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein the system is configured to wirelessly receive and transmit audio signals and pair with external electronic devices. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet wherein the system is configured to wirelessly receive and transmit audio signals and pair with external electronic devices (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Regarding claim 36, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 21, but do not expressly disclose wherein the system supports multiple operational configurations selectable via the one or more user interface buttons. However, in the same field of endeavor, Giulio discloses a helmet wherein the system supports multiple operational configurations selectable via the one or more user interface buttons (Giulio; Fig 2; Para [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Giulio as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a communication device which is reliable and safe in operation (Giulio; Para [0008]).
Claim(s) 32, 38-42, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baty et al (US 2013/0283507 A1) in view of Giulio et al (EP 2183989 B1) and further in view of Yamada et al (JP 2023-173745 A).
Regarding claim 32, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose comprising two communication units, one for each ear. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a helmet comprising two communication units, one for each ear (Yamada et al; Fig 2; left and right communication units). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Yamada as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to comfortably drive the motorcycle (Yamada et al; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 38, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein the enclosure defines microphone apertures and further comprises a microphone windscreen of porous acoustic material disposed over the apertures to attenuate wind noise. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a helmet wherein the enclosure defines microphone apertures and further comprises a microphone windscreen of porous acoustic material disposed over the apertures to attenuate wind noise (Yamada et al; Para [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Yamada as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to comfortably drive the motorcycle (Yamada et al; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 39, Baty in view of Giulio and further in view of Yamada et al disclose the headset system of claim 38, but do not expressly disclose wherein the porous acoustic material is open- cell foam, fabric, sponge, or synthetic fur. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a helmet wherein the porous acoustic material is open- cell foam, fabric, sponge, or synthetic fur (Yamada et al; Para [0058]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Yamada as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to comfortably drive the motorcycle (Yamada et al; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 40, Baty in view of Giulio and further in view of Yamada et al disclose the headset system of claim 38, but do not expressly disclose wherein the microphone windscreen is on an exterior surface of the enclosure opposite the cavity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a helmet wherein the microphone windscreen is on an exterior surface of the enclosure opposite the cavity (Yamada et al; Para [0058]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Yamada as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to comfortably drive the motorcycle (Yamada et al; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 41, Baty in view of Giulio and further in view of Yamada et al disclose the headset system of claim 38, but do not expressly disclose wherein the microphone windscreen is on an interior surface of the enclosure adjacent the cavity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a helmet wherein the microphone windscreen is on an interior surface of the enclosure adjacent the cavity (Yamada et al; Para [0058]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Yamada as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to comfortably drive the motorcycle (Yamada et al; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 42, Baty in view of Giulio and further in view of Yamada et al disclose the headset system of claim 38, but do not expressly disclose further comprising a windscreen support retaining the microphone windscreen in alignment with the apertures. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a helmet further comprising a windscreen support retaining the microphone windscreen in alignment with the apertures (Yamada et al; Para [0058]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Yamada as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to comfortably drive the motorcycle (Yamada et al; Para [0042]).
Regarding claim 44, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein the communication unit includes at least one of the following: automatic gain control, wind reduction algorithms, and active noise control. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a helmet wherein the communication unit includes at least one of the following: automatic gain control, wind reduction algorithms, and active noise control (Yamada et al; Para [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the communication unit attachment taught by Yamada as communication unit attachment in the helmet of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to comfortably drive the motorcycle (Yamada et al; Para [0042]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baty et al (US 2013/0283507 A1) in view of Giulio et al (EP 2183989 B1) and further in view of Rainey (US 2004/0226079 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein the communication unit comprises one or more ports for data transfer or battery charging. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rainey discloses a helmet wherein the communication unit comprises one or more ports for data transfer or battery charging (Rainey; Para [0020][0037]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the battery charging taught by Rainey as power control in the helmet of Baty. The motivation to do so would have been to provide benefit of being entertained (Rainey; Para [0018]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baty et al (US 2013/0283507 A1) in view of Giulio et al (EP 2183989 B1) and further in view of Kennedy (US 6,546,264 B1).
Regarding claim 22, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein the strap organizer further comprises a tongue protrusion configured to secure to a lower vertical portion of a Y-type helmet strap. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kennedy discloses a headset wherein the strap organizer further comprises a tongue protrusion configured to secure to a lower vertical portion of a Y-type helmet strap (Kennedy; Fig 1; strap around neck of wearer). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the strap organizer taught by Kennedy as strap organizer in the headset of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the user experience.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baty et al (US 2013/0283507 A1) in view of Giulio et al (EP 2183989 B1) and further in view of Lampe et al (US 6,349,416 B1).
Regarding claim 31, Baty in view of Giulio disclose the headset system of claim 19, but do not expressly disclose wherein a back surface of the strap organizer comprises a fastener surface configured to mate with the first or second fastener surface. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lampe et al disclose a helmet wherein a back surface of the strap organizer comprises a fastener surface configured to mate with the first or second fastener surface (Lampe et al; Fig 8; strap organizer 11 comprises fastener surface to mate with first and second fastener 7). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the strap organizer taught by Lampe as strap organizer in the headset of Nava. The motivation to do so would have been to permit easy disassembly (Lampe et al; col 6; lines 50-60).
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 KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights