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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 19, 21-22, 24, 27-28, and 30, filed October 22, 2025, which are pending in this application.
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 battery socket (claims 1 and 30; Examiner notes the battery socket is disclosed in para. 0099 but is now shown in the drawings) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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:
“securing mechanism” in claims 2-3;
“gripping mechanism” in claim 2;
“force applying member” in claim 3;
“battery biasing member” in claim 4.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite, “the detachable casing portion being couplable to the hard hat around the battery socket to align the one removable battery of the plurality of removable batteries with the battery socket”;
Claims 5 and 7 should recite, “when the plurality of removable batteries are coupled to the hard hat”;
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the center of gravity in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim;
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the head" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim;
Claim 10 should recite, “wherein the detachable casing portion is configured to be removable with a single hand of the user”;
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 1-4, 7, 9-10, 12, 16-17, 22, 24, 27-18, and 30 (and claims 5-6, 15, 19, and 21 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 1 is indefinite as it recites, “the detachable casing portion being couplable to the hard hat around the battery socket to align the one removable battery with the battery socket”. As a battery socket was not shown and as the battery casing portion (546-A) is not shown as extending “around” any other structure except the battery (550-A), it is unclear what structure is meant by “the detachable casing portion being couplable to the hard hat around the battery socket”. Para. 0106 and Fig. 5G further discloses the structure of the attachment of the battery to the hard hat, and Examiner has interpreted the battery socket to be referring to the fixed casing (544-A) but again, the detachable battery casing portion 546-A is not shown as extending around another structure.
Claim 2 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the detachable battery casing comprises: a mechanical interface for coupling with the hard hat, and a securing mechanism to secure the removable battery within the detachable battery casing when the detachable battery casing is not coupled to the hard hat, wherein the securing mechanism is arranged to release the removable battery when the detachable battery casing is coupled to the hard hat via the mechanical interface.” First, “the detachable casing” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear if “the detachable battery casing” is referring to the previously claimed detachable battery casing portion or to a different structure such as the plurality of battery coupling interfaces. Further, it is unclear if “the removable battery” is referring to the “one of the plurality of removable batteries” previously recited, any of the removable batteries, or an additional removeable battery. Further as para. 0106 recites, “The fixed casing 544-A forms part of a mechanical interface that holds the right detachable battery casing 546-A within the hard hat 510”, it is unclear how the detachable casing or detachable casing portion comprises the mechanical interface and/or how such an interface is a separate structure from the securing mechanism 580. Examiner notes claim 3 recites “the detachable battery casing” and “the removable battery” and is likewise indefinite.
Claim 3 is indefinite as it recites, “the mechanical interface applies a counteracting force to a second end of the pivoted member to move the pivoted member to release the removable battery within the detachable battery case.” As “the detachable battery case” lacks antecedent basis in the claim, it is unclear if the case is referring to the casing, the casing portion, or otherwise.
Claim 4 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the detachable battery casing further comprises: a battery biasing member, wherein, when the detachable battery casing is coupled to the hard hat, the battery biasing member applies a force to the removable battery to form an electrical connection between the removable battery and the integrated electronic subsystem of the hard hat.” First, “the detachable casing” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear if “the detachable battery casing” is referring to the previously claimed detachable battery casing portion or to a different structure such as the plurality of battery coupling interfaces. Further, it is unclear if “the removable battery” is referring to the “one of the plurality of removable batteries” previously recited, any of the removable batteries, or an additional removeable battery.
Claim 7 is indefinite as it recites, “the centre of gravity of the hard hat is located to the rear of the coupled removable batteries.” It is clear if “the coupled removable batteries” is referring to the plurality of batteries previously claimed or to different batteries. Further “the rear” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and since it is unclear that batteries are being referred to, it is unclear what the rear is referring to. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “the centre of gravity of the hard hat is located to [[the]] a rear of the plurality of removable batteries when the plurality of removable batteries are coupled to the hard hat.”
Claim 9 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein one or more of the plurality of removable batteries are further usable to power other peripheral devices used with the hard hat.” As the plurality of removable batteries have only been functionally recited and not recited as a structure required by the claims, it is unclear how claim 9 is further limiting the subject matter of claim 1 or if Applicant is now attempting to claim the batteries as a required structure of the invention. Examiner respectfully suggests amending claim 1 to recite the batteries as a structure of the hard hat, cancelling claim 9, or reciting that the hard hat comprises the batteries in claim 9.
Claim 10 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the detachable casing portion is removable with a single hand of the user”. It is unclear if “the detachable casing portion” is referring to one of the detachable casing portions or the detachable casing portion of each of the plurality of battery coupling interfaces. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein the detachable casing portion of each of the plurality of battery coupling interfaces is removable with a single hand of the user”.
Claim 12 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the integrated electronic subsystem comprises a compute module for an augmented reality system, and wherein each detachable casing portion forms a lateral wing to a viewing assembly for the augmented reality system.” First it is unclear if “each detachable casing portion” is referring to the detachable casing portion of each of the plurality of battery coupling interfaces or to different/additional detachable casing portions. Further, as the casing portion forms a wing to a viewing assembly for the augmented reality system, it is unclear if the viewing assembly and the augmented reality system are required by the claims as they appear to be functionally recited, but in order to for the casing portion to be a wing to the viewing assembly for the augmented reality system, then at least the viewing assembly is needed, otherwise it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 16 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the first thickness is around 1.5mm, the second thickness is around 0.8mm”. As the term “around” has many meanings, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain what thickness can be included or excluded. Examiner has interpreted “around” to mean “approximately”.
Claim 17 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein a first integrated electronic subsystem is mounted upon one or more of the inner portion and the outer portion at a rear of the hard hat between the outer and inner portions, wherein the first integrated electronic subsystem comprises a fan and a spacing between the outer and inner portions allows an air flow over the first integrated electronic subsystem.” As claim 1 recites, “at least one integrated electronic subsystem”, it is unclear if “a first integrated electronic subsystem” is referring to the at least one integrated electronic subsystem, a different/additional subsystem, or if the at least one subsystem comprises a first subsystem and in such a case, it is unclear if there is now a plurality of integrated electronic subsystems. Further, it is unclear if “a spacing between the outer and inner portions” is a newly required structure of if it is referring to where the outer and inner portions are spaced apart as recited in claim 1.
Claim 22 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the deformable ventilation coupling comprises a waterproof seal to prevent water entering the ventilation apertures… wherein the deformable ventilation coupling comprises a rubber member”. As the claim recites the seal and the rubber member as two distinct structures, but para. 0087 recites, “The deformable ventilation coupling 450 forms a seal between the inner ventilation apertures 434 and the outer ventilation apertures 414, whereby air is able to flow from the inside of the inner portion 432 out through to an exterior of the outer portion 410 (and vice versa). In FIG. 4A, the inner ventilation apertures 434 comprise rubber bushings to facilitate a seal and mating with the deformable ventilation coupling 450”, it is unclear if there is a seal and a rubber member or if the seal comprises the rubber member.
Claim 24 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the deformable ventilation coupling comprises: a first rigid frame for coupling to the inner portion; a second rigid frame for coupling to the outer portion; and a deformable suspension system arranged between the first and second rigid frames.” As claim 24 depends from claim 1, “the deformable ventilation coupling” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear if a new structure is being introduced or if claim 24 should depend from claims 21 or 22. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted claim 24 to depend from claim 21.
Claim 27 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the set of cradle mounting pins are removable to select different ones of the plurality of spaced apertures to adjust a relative height of the cradle compared to the cradle mounting for use.” It is unclear what “for use” is referring to as it could mean during use of the hard hat and cradle, for use with another structure, or is simply an error.
Claim 28 is indefinite as it recites, “and wherein the cradle mounting pins comprise a foldable handle, the foldable handle having a position substantially normal to a face of each mounting pin to turn the pin.” It is unclear if the cradle mounting pins collectively comprise a foldable handle or if each pin of the set of cradle mounting pins comprises a foldable handle. Further it is unclear what can be included or excluded by “substantially normal” and how far the position of the handle can deviate from being normal and be considered “substantially normal”. And it is unclear if “each mounting pin” and “the pin” is referring to each of the cradle mounting pins or different/additional pin(s).
Claim 30 is indefinite as it recites, “A hard hat with an integrated electronic subsystem comprising;”. It is unclear of the recitations following this limitation are referring to the hard hat or to the integrated electronic system. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “A hard hat with an integrated electronic subsystem, the hard hat comprising;”.
Claim 30 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each of the plurality of battery coupling interfaces comprises a battery socket and is configured to couple a detachable casing portion”. It is unclear what the plurality of battery coupling interfaces are configured to couple a detachable casing portion to or if the plurality of battery coupling interfaces are coupled to a detachable casing portion.
Claim 30 is indefinite as it recites, “the detachable casing portion being couplable to the hard hat to align the one removable battery with the battery socket”. As the claim earlier recites, “wherein each of the plurality of battery coupling interfaces comprises a battery socket and is configured to couple a detachable casing portion”, where the detachable casing portion is only functionally recited and thus not a required structure of the claim, the present limitation makes it unclear if the detachable casing is now required by the claim. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, ““wherein each of the plurality of battery coupling interfaces comprises a battery socket and a detachable casing portion, at least one removable battery of the plurality of removable batteries with the battery socket”.
Claim 30 is indefinite as it recites, “each detachable casing portion forms a lateral wing to a viewing assembly for the augmented reality system.” First it is unclear if “each detachable casing portion” is referring to the detachable casing portion of each of the plurality of battery coupling interfaces or to different/additional detachable casing portions. Further, as the casing portion forms a wing to a viewing assembly for the augmented reality system, it is unclear if the viewing assembly and the augmented reality system are required by the claims as they appear to be functionally recited, but in order to for the casing portion to be a wing to the viewing assembly for the augmented reality system, then at least the viewing assembly is needed, otherwise it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 19, 21-22, 24, 27-28, and 30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record as none of them, alone or in combination, disclose a hard hat with an integrated electronic subsystem mounted between the inner and outer portions of the hard hat, and a plurality of battery coupling interfaces mounted laterally and within the hard hat, the interfaces each having a battery socket between the inner and outer portion, and a detachable casing portion couplable to the hard hat to align a removably battery with the battery socket, and the subsystem configured to draw power from the removable batteries such that one is removed, power is not lost. The closest prior art is Bevan (US 2023/0397684) and Bartels (US 11559099). Bevans teaches disclose a hard hat with an integrated electronic subsystem, and a plurality of battery coupling interfaces mounted laterally on the hard hat, the interfaces each having a battery socket, and a detachable casing portion couplable to the hard hat to align a removably battery with the battery socket, and the subsystem configured to draw power from the removable batteries such that one is removed, power is not lost, but does not teach the battery socket mounted within the hard hat between the inner and outer portions of the hard hat. Bartels teaches a helmet with batteries mounted laterally and within the hard hat, but does not teach the battery casing being removable. Modifying Bevan or Bartels to have the claimed structure would be hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s own disclosure, as a resulting combination would no longer allow any portion of the battery interfaces to be detachable and therefore the claims are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Teetzel (US 2024/0356143) teaches a helmet with battery interfaces mounted on lateral sides of the hard hat, Becker (US 2019/0191808) teaches a helmet with a battery coupling within a lateral side of a helmet, English (US 7114194) teaches batteries positioned within a brim of a hard hat, and Zhavoronkov (US 10383384) teaches a hard hat with electrical interfaces withing the hard hat.
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