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 pre-amendment of 12/3/2025 is received. Claims 3, 5-9, 12, and 14 are amended and claims 1-14 are pending. A specification amendment of 12/3/25 is also entered.
A power of attorney is on file for this application, received 12/3/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the user” should be changed to “a user”.
Claim 13: “a first microphone that is directed towards the user” should be revised to recite “a first microphone configured to be directed towards the user” as the user is not part of the claimed helmet structure and therefore should be recited functionally.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 13 as in Figures 1-4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 an adapter functionally relative to the helmet in the preamble- “configured to releasably attach a camera”. However, the body of the claim appears to recite the adapter in combination with the helmet structure as the body recites “the adapter comprises a shape that corresponds to a shape of a recess of a chin section of the helmet” and “the adapter comprises or defines one or more than one air duct extending into the recess..”. Claims 2 and 3 also recite the adapter in combination with the helmet. Please clarify whether claim 1 is intended to recite the helmet functionally or in combination with the helmet. The claim is interpreted as reciting the helmet in combination with the adapter. For claim 3, the claim recites the camera as part of the adapter “the one or more than one air duct is defined between the adapter and the camera”; however in claim 1 the camera appears to be functionally recited. Please clarify the claim language to recite the camera, as it appears the claim intends for this interpretation.
For claim 4, the claim recites “said helmet comprises an adapter according to claim 1, wherein: the adapter of the camera system comprises the shape corresponding to the recess of the chin section to thereby releasably attach the camera to the chin section; and the adapter comprises or defines one or more than one air duct extending into the recess and configured to guide air towards a mouth of the user.” However, claim 1 previously recites that the adapter comprises or defines one or more than one air duct extending into the recess such that this limitation is redundant as claim 4 previously recites the helmet comprises an adapter according to claim 1, the adapter including all the features set forth in claim 1 (as best understood).
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurtler (DE 202013010445) in view of Bartels et al. (Bartels, U.S. 11,559,099). Gurtler discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Gurtler teaches an adapter 8, configured to releasably attach a camera for capturing a video image to a full-face type helmet, wherein: the adapter 8 comprises a shape that corresponds to a shape of a recess of a chin section 7 of the helmet to allow the adapter to be releasably attachable to said chin section 7. However, Gurtler doesn’t teach the adapter comprises or defines one or more than one air duct extending into the recess and configured to guide air towards a mouth of the user. Bartels teaches a helmet 1 with a chin section 2 of the helmet including air ducts 24 (Fig.1) for “supplying outside air to the person wearing the protective helmet”. The chin section 2 surrounds a recess for an imaging device 18 (recess is the portion housing imaging device 18), with the air ducts 24 located in front of opening 4a such that the air ducts are considered to extend into the recess. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gurtler to comprise or define one or more than one air duct extending into the recess and configured to guide air towards a mouth of the user, as Bartels teaches this structure supplies outside air to the person wearing the helmet and is expected to improve the comfort of the helmet user.
For claim 2, Gurtler’s modified helmet teaches the adapter according to claim 1, wherein the one or more than one air duct is defined between the chin section and the adapter, as Bartels teaches the one or more than one air duct formed though the exterior of the chin section and modifying Gurtler’s helmet to include the one or more than one air duct would result in the air duct defined between the chin section and adapter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 3 requires that the one or more than one air duct is defined between the adapter and the camera.
Claims 4-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Claim 4 recites the details of the helmet in combination with the camera system extending at least partially into the recess of the chin section, and the adapter of the camera system comprising the shape corresponding to the recess of the chin section to releasably attach the camera to the chin section and the helmet comprising the adapter as set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights