DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed July 21, 2025 in which claims 15-24 and 27-30 are presented for examination claims 1-14 and 25-26 are canceled.
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
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 10-11 recite “wherein the middle section defines the first and second sides and are configured to cover sides of the human head,” which should be amended to recite “wherein the middle section defines the first and second sides and is configured to cover sides of the human head.”
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 12 recites “the back of the human head,” which should be amended to recite “a back of the human head” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 27 contains the drafting error “the a second temple,” which should be amended to recite “a second temple.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-24 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a helmet body formed from a single layer of material.” This limitation constitutes new matter because following a Requirement for Restriction mailed November 30, 2022, Applicant elected Species E, helmet 4702, corresponding to Figures 47-57. In the instant specification at paragraph 00135 (see below), helmet 4702 of the elected embodiment is disclosed as being made of several different layers of material rather than a single layer of material:
PNG
media_image1.png
322
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, there is no support for the elected embodiment to include a helmet body formed from a single layer of material and this limitation constitutes new matter.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “wherein the top section is made of a first material, said middle and bottom sections are made of a second material that is different from the first material.” However, claim 20 depends from claim 15 which previously recites the helmet body being “formed from a single layer of material.” Taken together, these limitations render the claim indefinite at least because it is unclear how the helmet body can have only a single layer of material yet have sections made of different materials. The instant specification does not adequately describe such a configuration in relation to the elected embodiment as least because para. 00135 (see above) discloses several different layers of different types of material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 15-24 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,950,244 Fournier et al. in view of USPN 6,389,607 Wood and in further view of US Pub No. 2019/0053563 Ganly.
To claim 15, Fournier discloses a protective headgear assembly (10) (see Figures 1-10; col. 3, line 33 – col. 6, line 18), comprising:
a helmet configured to fit a human head, the helmet having a helmet body (16) formed from a single layer of material (see Figures 2-10; col. 3, line 57 – col. 3, line 2), the helmet body having a front, a back opposite the front, a first side that extends from the back toward the front, a second side opposite the first side, a top section that sits atop the first side, the second side, and the back, along a line, a middle section that connects to the top section and at the line that extends around the helmet, and a bottom section adjacent to the middle section and the first and second sides (see Figures 2-10), an outer surface, an inner surface forming a portion for facing the human head (see Figures 2-10), wherein the middle section defines the first and second sides and is configured to cover sides of the human head so that the top section substantially overlies only a top of a human head and the back only overlies a back of the human head when the protective headgear assembly is worn (see Figures 2-10), said inner surface of the first side of said helmet defining a first recess (25) having a first depth and a first recess perimeter (see Figures 2-10; col. 4, lines 16-31), and the inner surface of the second side defining a second recess (25) having a second depth and a second recess perimeter (see Figures 2-10; col. 4, lines 16-31);
a first pad (18), the first pad having a size and a first perimeter shape that is substantially similar to the first recess perimeter, wherein the first pad protrudes beyond the inner surface (see Figures 2-10; col. 3, line 57 – col. 4, line 43); and
a second pad (18), separated from the first pad, the second pad having a size and a second perimeter shape that is substantially similar to the second recess perimeter (see Figures 2-10; col. 3, line 57 – col. 4, line 43),
wherein the first and second pads are resilient to and recover their thicknesses in response to an external impact on the first and second sides of the helmet body (see Figures 2-10; col. 4, lines 44-63; functional).
It is unclear from the disclosure of Fournier whether the first and second recess are disposed in the recited “middle section” and whether the first and second pads are disposed entirely in the middle section below the line at the first side and attached to the helmet body in the first recess in order to directly contact a first temple of a wearer's head when worn and entirely in the middle section and below the line at the second side and attached to the helmet body in the second recess in order to directly contact a second temple of the wearer's head when worn, respectively.
However, Wood teaches a protective headgear assembly (15) (see Figures 1-4; col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14) comprising a helmet body (18), the helmet body having a front, a back opposite the front, a first side that extends from the back toward the front, a second side opposite the first side, a top section that sits atop the first side, the second side, and the back, along a line, a middle section that connects to the top section and at the line that extends around the helmet, and a bottom section adjacent to the middle section and the first and second sides (see Figures 1-2 and 4; col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 10), first (28) and second (28) pads, wherein the first pad is disposed entirely in the middle section below the line at the first side and attached to the helmet body in order to directly contact a first temple of a wearer's head when worn and wherein the second pad is disposed entirely in the middle section and below the line at the second side and attached to the helmet body in order to directly contact a second temple of the wearer's head when worn (see Figures 1-2 and 4; col. 3, line 60 – col. 4, line 14; as depicted in Figures 1-2 and 4, protective headgear assembly 15 has separate pads 28 disposed over the middle section of helmet body 18 including in areas configured to directly contact temples of a wearer).
Fournier and Wood teach analogous inventions in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the protective headgear assembly of Fournier such that the first and second pads are in the middle section and configured to directly contact temples of a wearer as taught by Wood because Wood teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for providing a safety for a wearer (col. 2, lines 25-32). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a protective headgear assembly having pads configured to directly contact temples of a wearer would provide impact protection for the temples of the wearer.
The modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood, as detailed above) does not expressly teach a protective headgear assembly wherein the middle section has a portion with a greater thickness than a thickness of the bottom section.
However, Ganly teaches a protective headwear assembly (see Figures 1-23 paras. 0090-0107) wherein the middle section has a portion with a greater thickness than a thickness of the bottom section (see Figures 1-7; paras. 0090-0095; inasmuch as currently claimed, there is an increased thickness in the middle section due to foam pieces 21 compared to the lower edge of bottom section which lacks foam pieces 21).
The modified invention of Fournier and Ganly teach analogous inventions in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the protective headgear assembly of the modified invention of Fournier such that the middle section has a portion with a greater thickness than a thickness of the bottom section as taught by Ganly because Ganly teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for reducing the incidence and/or severity of concussions, thereby enhancing sports player performance and maximizing safety (para. 0103).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “wherein the first and second pads are resilient to and recover their thicknesses in response to an external impact on the first and second sides of the helmet body,” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) teaches a protective headgear assembly with all the structural elements as recited in claim 15, there would be a reasonable expectation for the protective headgear assembly of the modified invention of Fournier to perform such function.
To claim 16, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein said first pad includes a back surface, said first recess has a bottom surface having said first recess perimeter, said back surface of said first pad attaches to said bottom surface of said first recess, wherein second pad includes a back surface, the second recess has a bottom surface having the second recess perimeter, the back surface of the second pad attaches to the bottom surface of said second recess (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood).
To claim 17, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the first pad and the second pad each have a thickness that when placed in respective first and second recesses act as shims to create a custom fit for a wearer's head (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood).
To claim 18, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly further comprising a third pad for the front of the wearer's head that it at least as soft as the foam of the helmet body; and a fourth pad for the back of the wearer's head, wherein the third pad and the fourth pad are distinct from each other and are located entirely in the middle section below the line (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood).
To claim 19, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the bottom section is more flexible than the top section (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood; increased flexibility of the bottom section relative to the top section at least due to the relatively planar shape of the bottom section compared to the domed shaped of the top section).
To claim 20, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the top section is made of a first material, said middle and bottom sections are made of a second material that is different from the first material (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood; see Figures 1-4 and paras. 0090-0102).
To claim 21, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the third pad is configured to contact a forehead of the wearer's head when the protective headgear assembly is worn and the fourth pad is configured to contact the back of the wearer's head when the protective headgear assembly is worn (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood).
To claim 22, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the helmet body has an aperture (26 of Fournier) located in the back (see especially Figure 7-10 and col. 4, lines 17-31 of Fournier).
To claim 23, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the helmet body includes a set of upper vents (48 of Wood) located entirely at the top section and a set of lower vents (45 of Wood) located at the bottom section, wherein the first and second pads are located substantially between the upper vents and the lower vents (see Figures 1-3 and col. 5, line 31-35 of Wood).
To claim 24, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the back surface of the first and second pads are configured to attach to the bottom surface of the first recess and second recess, respectively, via a hook and loop system (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; col. 4, lines 1-14 of Wood).
To claim 27, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the third and fourth pad each have a thickness that create a custom fit for a wearer's head (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood).
To claim 28, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly further comprising: a fifth pad; and a sixth pad; wherein the fifth pad and the sixth pad are distinct from one another (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood).
To claim 29, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth pads are disposed solely at the middle section of the helmet (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood).
To claim 30, the modified invention of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Wood and Ganly, as detailed above) further teaches an assembly wherein the top section does not include any portion of the first and second pads (see Figures 1-10 and col. 3, line 34 – col. 5, line 37 of Fournier; see Figures 1 and 2-4 and col. 2, line 65 – col. 4, line 14 of Wood).
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 GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights