DETAILED ACTION,
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to amendment received on 04/20/26. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended and claims 1-3, 7, 13-17 and 23-26 are examined herein.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the title is repeated in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support for “a nameplate adjacent the opening and adapted for interconnecting the facemask and shell via fasteners, said plate presenting a nameplate length extending along front portion to a back portion; said at least one non-active section in the dorsal portion, includes a front distal non-active section presenting a minimum length greater than the nameplate length, such that said at least one compliant energy dissipating section is spaced from the nameplate” as provided claim 1.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support needs to be provided for “an uppermost crown” as amended into claim 1.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support needs to be provided for “wherein the front distal non-active dorsal section presents lateral extents, a medial height, and heights at the lateral extends greater than the medial height, so as to present a concave profile” as provided claim 26.
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 1-3, 7, 9-10, 13-17 and 23-26 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “hard, durable material” would be. What materials would or would not read on this termed limitation? The specification is silent as to what would or would not be considered a “hard, durable material”.
Applicant argues that the claim limitation “durable materials” should be afforded its ordinary meaning. However, the applicant has not provided any parameters as to what durable would or would not be structurally. Durable is a term that does not have a clear metes and bounds as to what would or would not read on it structurally or materially. One person can define one thing as durable and another person can define that same thing as not durable.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what “an uppermost crown” is structurally referring to, the specification is silent as to what the uppermost crown is or is defined by.
Regarding Claim 1 and the claims that depend therefrom 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. It is unclear what “a front portion to a back portion” is structurally of when referring to the nameplate. Is the length of the nameplate extending along a front portion and a back portion of the nameplate, if so how is this the length? Further, the specification fails to mention or define the front and back portion of a nameplate.
Regarding Claim 15, and the claims that depend therefrom 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. It is unclear what “viewable” would require structurally of the dissipating section. Is the dissipating section viewable at all, or is the dissipating section based upon the structure and/or materials within and/or below the shell? Would one be able to visibly distinguish the dissipating section when viewing the helmet? It is unclear what is structurally required of the dissipating section to read on this claim.
Applicant remarks that Figures 1, 1a and 2 detail the viewable dissipating section. However, the dissipating section in figures 1, 1a and 2 is underneath the outer shell layer and would not be viewable to an onlooker when viewing the helmet.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, it is unclear how the composite shell, inner layer, and outer layer relate to the outer shell layer of claim 1. Is the shell an additional layer or does the composite shell comprise the shell? It is unclear what the dissipating section comprises structurally and how the structures relates to each other.
Regarding Claim 23, it is unclear what is required structurally to read on the “non-active sections”, since it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “rigid” would include or exclude. There are many levels of rigidity and the term “rigid” would not make clear what would or would not read materially or structurally of the claimed term. Further, it the specification does not define what rigid would require structurally to read thereon. Additionally, it is unclear what would “the condition” is structurally. The limitation is being positively claimed to both the dissipating and non-active section, yet would two condition and not a single condition.. The impact condition on one section would not be the condition on another section, each section would have their own condition from an impact. It is unclear what structure is required to read on the claim.
Regarding Claim 24, it is unclear what is required structurally to read on “configured to present a plurality of separate compartments”, are separate compartments required or some other structure that is configured to present as such? It is unclear what would or would not read on the limitation and what is required to “promote local deformation”.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ferrara (US 2006/0059606).
In regard to claim 23, Ferrara teach a protective football helmet configured to fit upon the head of a user (helmet: 2, 2’, 250; paragraph 0033), receive an anticipatory impact having energy, and dissipate a portion of the energy when the impact is received (paragraph 0031), said football helmet comprising: a composite shell (shell: 30, 30’, 230) defining an exterior surface (see figures 2, 6, 7A, 7B, 10B, 10D, 10C), and including an inner layer and an outer layer at least partially spaced from the inner layer (inner layer: 28, 28’, 228; outer layer: 20, 20’, 220), wherein the outer layer is caused to resistively collapse towards the inner layer by the impact, so as to dissipate said portion of energy (see figures 7A, 7B, 10C 10D;0036), said outer layer defining the exterior surface and an original shape, adapted to receive the impact (20, 20’ and 220: figures 2, 6, 10B), and presenting a compliant energy dissipating section configured to resistively collapse towards the head, so as to achieve an impact condition and dissipate said portion of the energy, when receiving the impact (paragraph 0036, figures 7A, 7B, 10C, 10D), wherein the outer layer presents a first thickness, and the inner layer presents a second thickness greater than the first thickness (10B, 10C, 10D, inner layer is thicker than outer layer), said inner layer defining a rigid, non-active section configured so as to not achieve the condition and not dissipate said portion of the energy, when receiving the impact (inner layer: 28, 28’ and 228; paragraph 0036 and Figures 7A, 7B, 10C, 10D); a compressible medium intermediate the inner layer and outer layer, and operable to drive the outer layer towards the original shape when in the impact condition (compressible medium/compressible layer: 24, 24’/50, 50’, wherein the compressible medium includes a plurality of tubular elastic members orthogonally interconnecting the inner and outer layers (paragraphs 0047 and 0068); paragraphs 0046-0047, 0057 and 0065 detailing the TPE material and performance properties); and interior padding interior to the shell (internal liner: 32, 32’, 232), adapted to engage the head when the helmet is donned, and configured to be compressed when the shell receives the impact (paragraph 0050).
In regard to claim 24, Ferrara teaches wherein the medium is configured to present a plurality of separate compartments, so as to promote local deformation (see medium: 24, 24’/50, 50’, which present as separate compartments in Figures 4, 6, 7A, 7B, 10A-10D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s response dated 04/30/26 fails not point out any error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the prior art references and how they apply to the claimed limitations or any errors in the 112 2nd paragraph rejections. Applicant does mention that all the arguments of record remain pending on the prior art and 112 2nd paragraph rejections. The bolded type paragraphs the 112 2nd paragraph rejections below responds to the arguments presented previously in prosecution. The only arguments with respect to the Ferrara prior art are that it is a bike helmet and does not teach the limitations as claimed.
Ferrara teaches the claimed limitations of claims 23 and 24 as detailed above and the helmet of Ferrara is a protective headgear/helmet for contact sports including football (see paragraph 0005).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached on (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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights