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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of 14 August 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 8 remains canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcame each and every drawing objection, specification objection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 19 February 2025. Claims 1-7 and 9 are presented for examination on the merits.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 14 August 2025. These drawings are acceptable and entered.
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 following structures must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 1, “wherein the support includes a front support portion facing the jaw-protecting portion of the protector”, it appears the jaw-protecting portion 34 is shown in the first embodiment of the helmet and Fig. 2, but not shown in the fifth embodiment of the helmet as described in para. 29 or in the amended drawings of Figs. 8-10 to support the claimed limitation;
Claim 1, “two opposite rear support portions facing the cheek-protecting portion of the shell”, it appears the cheek-protecting portion 24 is shown in the first embodiment of the helmet and Fig. 2, but not shown in or a part of the fifth embodiment of the helmet as described in para. 29 or in the amended drawings of Figs. 8-10 to support the claimed limitation;
Claim 1, “two opposite intermediate support portions connected between the front and the rear support portions and facing the neck-protecting portion of the protector”, it appears the neck-protecting portion 56 is shown in the third embodiment of the helmet and Fig. 6, but not shown in the fifth embodiment of the helmet as described in para. 29 or in the amended drawings of Figs. 8-10 to support the claimed limitation;
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 14 August 2025 is acknowledged and entered in part. The following recitation of amended para. 29 is acceptable: “two opposite rear support portions 73 facing the cheek-protecting portion 24 of the shell 20, and two opposite intermediate support portions 75 connected between the front and rear support portions 71, 73 and facing the neck-protecting portion 36 of the protector 30”.
The amendment filed 14 August 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure in para. 29 is as follows: “The support 70 includes a front support portion 71 facing the jaw-protecting portion 34 of the protector 30”. Examiner notes that the fifth embodiment of the helmet as shown in Figs. 8-9 of para. 29 does not previously disclose a jaw protecting portion 34.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: amended para. 29, “neck-protecting portion 36 of the protector 30” should be amended to read “neck-protecting portion 56 of the protector 30”.
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 1-7 and 9 is/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, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim how “The support 70 includes a front support portion 71 facing the jaw-protecting portion 34 of the protector 30”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear where the jaw-protecting portion 34 exists on the protector 30 in Fig. 8-9. It appears the jaw-protecting portion 34 exists on the protector 30 in the third embodiment of Fig. 6, as shown by a cavity in the protector 30, but no such cavity exists in the fifth embodiment of Fig. 8. It is further unclear which structure is the jaw-protecting portion 34 in Fig. 8. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify where the jaw-protecting portion 34 exists on the protector 30 in the fifth embodiment of the helmet and in at least Fig. 8. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets a portion on the protector 30 of Fig. 8 as a jaw-protecting portion (see annotated Fig. of the rejection of claim 1 below). Examiner notes the term “portion” is very broad and merely means “a part of a whole; fraction”, see defn. no. 1 of Collins English Dictionary- Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition, 2014, entry via thefreedictionary.com/portion. Claim 1 is rejected as best understood by 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham et al. (US 2017/0318893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Durham discloses a helmet (10; Figs. 10-11), comprising:
a shell (20) having a body (22) and a front frame (100) integrally disposed at a front edge of the body (Fig. 10 shows that once 20, 22, and 100 are attached, 100 is “integrally disposed” at a front edge of 22; it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding; see annotated Fig. 10 below showing a front edge of the body), the body having a head-protecting portion (24 of 22; Fig. 10) and two opposing cheek-protecting portions (see annotated Fig. 10 below of left and right cheek-protecting portions), the two cheek- protecting portions extending downward (see annotated Fig. 10 below), integrally from left and right ends of the head-protecting portion (see annotated Fig. 10 below), respectively;
PNG
media_image1.png
340
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a protector (100, 32) having a jaw-protecting portion (110, 120, and 130 of 100) and a neck-protecting portion (32), the neck- protecting portion extending backward, integrally from a back end of the jaw-protecting portion (once assembled, 32 is extending backward and integrally from 124; the location of 124 is a back end of the jaw-protecting portion), wherein a top edge of the neck-protecting portion of the protector (see annotated Fig. 10 below) connects to bottom edges of the cheek-protecting portions of the shell (once assembled, the top edge of the neck-protecting portion shown in annotated Fig. 10 below connects to bottom edges of the cheek-protecting portions of the shell shown in annotated Fig. 10 above; the bottom edges are the left and right edge portions shown in annotated Fig. 10 above);
PNG
media_image2.png
233
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a foam liner (40; para. 28 discloses 40 is made of expanded foam) disposed on an entire inner side of the shell (Fig. 10 as assembled places 40 on an entire inner side of 20, and 26 is the entire inner side of 20 that faces 40) and on an entire inner side of the protector (Fig. 10 shows 134 as an inner side of the protector and 40 is on “an entire inner side” because 40 attaches to 134 when assembled) to couple the shell and the protector together (Fig. 10 as assembled; paras. 28 and 36, where 40 lines 20 and 40 couples with 100 when assembled);
wherein the helmet further comprises a support (150, 160) disposed within the protector (Fig. 10) and enclosed entirely by the foam liner (Fig. 10 & paras. 38-39, where 150 and 160 are co-molded with foam liner 40, and therefore, “enclosed entirely by the foam liner” inasmuch as claimed);
wherein bottom edges of the front frame connect to a top edge of the jaw-protecting portion of the protector (Fig. 10 as assembled; see annotated Fig. 10 below of a top edge of 100);
PNG
media_image3.png
305
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the support is disposed within the protector (para. 41 discloses “the right flange 150 and the left flange 160 are offset from the exterior 112, the right extension plate 152 is thinner than the right padding engagement surface 124, the left extension plate 162 is thinner than the left padding engagement surface 134”, and therefore, is “disposed within the protector” because it is narrower than the thickness profile of 100 at 124 and 134) and faces side sections of the jaw- protecting portion (Fig. 10), wherein the support includes a front support portion (see annotated Fig. 10 below) facing the jaw-protecting portion of the protector (see annotated Fig. 10 below, where the annotated front support portion faces 110, 120, and 130 of 100; Examiner notes the term “portion”, used in this limitation and hereinafter, is very broad and merely means “a part of a whole; fraction”, see defn. no. 1 of Collins English Dictionary- Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition, 2014, entry via thefreedictionary.com/portion), two opposite rear support portions (see annotated Fig. 10 below) facing the cheek-protecting portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 10 above and below, which show the two opposite rear support portions facing the annotated cheek-protecting portion of the shell; see Fig. 10 as assembled), and two opposite intermediate support portions connected between the front and rear support portions and facing the neck-protecting portion of the protector (see annotated Fig. 10 below and Fig. 10 as assembled).
PNG
media_image4.png
407
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Durham discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the protector is formed by connecting two opposing curved bars (see annotated Fig. 10 below), front ends of the two curved bars (see annotated Fig. 10 below, where the front two ends are the ends facing toward 110) are connected to jointly form the jaw- protecting portion (Fig. 10), and back ends of the two curved bars (see annotated Fig. 10 below, where the back ends of the two opposing curved bars are facing towards 32) are connected to jointly form the neck- protecting portion (Fig. 10 as assembled and annotated Fig. 10 below show the back ends of the two curved bars to connect to 32 via 40, and therefore “connected to jointly form the neck-protecting portion” inasmuch as claimed).
PNG
media_image5.png
305
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Durham discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the protector has two opposing curved bars (see annotated Fig. 10 above of claim 2 rejection) and a terminal cover (para. 44 discloses a vent defined at 110), front ends of the two curved bars are connected to the terminal cover such that the front ends of the two curved bars and the terminal cover jointly form the jaw-protecting portion (Fig. 10 & para. 44 as assembled; see annotated Fig. 10 above of claim 2 rejection, where the front two ends are the ends facing toward 110), and back ends of the two curved bars (the rearmost ends of the two curved bars shown in annotated Fig. 10 above of claim 2 rejection) are connected to jointly form the neck-protecting portion (Fig. 10 as assembled, the rearmost ends of the two curved bars shown in annotated Fig. 10 below connect to 32 via 40, and therefore “connected to jointly form the neck-protecting portion” inasmuch as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Durham discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the protector is annular (Fig. 10 as assembled shows 100 and 32 as annular).
Regarding claim 5, Durham discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein a plurality of conical portions (paras. 38-39 disclose a screw in both 154 and 164) facing the protector (paras. 38-39 disclose a screw in both 154 and 164, and once assembled, the screws are “facing the protector” inasmuch as claimed) is disposed on a side of the support (paras. 38-39 disclose a screw in both 154 and 164, and once assembled, the screws is/are “disposed on a side of the support”, and further disposed on a left or right side, inasmuch as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Durham discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the protector has a plurality of hollowed-out recesses (see annotated Fig. 10 below), and the foam liner is disposed on the inner side of the protector except for the hollowed- out recesses (see annotated Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
305
560
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Durham discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the shell has a plurality of hollowed-out recesses (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and the foam liner is disposed on the inner side of the shell except for the hollowed-out recesses (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
312
466
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Durham discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the support is disposed within the protector (para. 41 discloses “the right flange 150 and the left flange 160 are offset from the exterior 112, the right extension plate 152 is thinner than the right padding engagement surface 124, the left extension plate 162 is thinner than the left padding engagement surface 134”, and therefore, is “disposed within the protector” because it is narrower than the thickness profile of 100 at 124 and 134) and faces a front end of the jaw-protecting portion (Fig. 10, where the front end of 100 is the surface of 134, and therefore, the protector faces 134).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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 on 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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732