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
The amendment filed on 3/24/2026 has been fully considered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 5, 11-13, 17, 21, 23-25 were cancelled. Claim 26 was newly added. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-16, 18-20, 22, and 26 have been examined on the merits.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 16, 18, 19, 22 and 24-25] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Schimpf (US 2012/0060251). The device of Schimpf discloses,
With respect to claim 1, A helmet comprising:
an impact absorbing layer (8, figures 12, and 13)
a detachable (the shell is capable for use to detach, via connector, to inner shell 1,7) outer shell (1, 7) mounted on the outer surface of the impact absorbing layer (figure 1); and
a connector (20) detachably (ruptures para 0059) connects the outer shell (1, 7) to the impact absorbing layer (8) to retain the outer shell on the impact absorbing layer (Figure 12);
wherein the connector (20) is configured to allow the outer shell to fully detach (moves from a from the impact absorbing layer when the helmet is subject to an impact (20, 21, para 0059, the connection is ruptured and there is a full detachment between the two elemetns) . The language “configured to allow the outer shell to fully detach” is a functional recitation. The prior art of Schimpf substantially discloses the claimed invention except for naming the amount of force required to provide the functional limitation of “arranged to allow the outer shell to separate from the impact absorbing layer when the helmet is subject to an impact”. The prior art is capable of performing the claimed function and therefore meets the claim, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the outer shell is formed from a rigid material (para 0030).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the connector (20 )is located along an axis of symmetry of the helmet (Figure 12. 13).
With respect to claim 7, wherein the connector (20) is located at the front of the helmet (Figure 12).
With respect to claim 8, wherein the connector (20) comprises a discrete component from the outer shell and the impact absorbing layer.
With respect to claim 9, wherein at least a portion of the connector (20 ) is arranged to detach (20, 21) from the impact absorbing layer (8) and/or the outer shell when the helmet is subject to an impact (para 0059).
With respect to claim 16, wherein the connector (20) comprises a projection (lower portion 21) that is integral to the impact absorbing layer (it is noted that integral is defined “formed as a unit with another part” and since the connector forms a unit with the impact absorbing unit, it meets the claim as currently presented), wherein the projection nis attached to the main body of the impact absorbing layer (8) but a flexible portion (upper end of 20).
With respect to claim 18, wherein the impact absorbing layer (8) comprises a cavity (area of 8, that surround element 20) arranged to receive the projection (Figure 12).
With respect to claim 19, at least a portion of the outer shell (1,7) comprises an aperture (area free of element 20) for receiving the projection (20).
With respect to claim 22, wherein the connector (20) extends in a radial direction to the impact absorbing layer (Figure 12, 13)
With respect to claim 26, A helmet comprising: an impact absorbing layer (8);
an outer shell (1,7) configured on the outer surface of the impact absorbing layer (Figure 12);
and a connector (20) which connects the outer shell to the impact absorbing layer to retain the outer shell on the impact (21; Figure 13) absorbing layer, wherein the connector (20) which connects the outer shell to the impact absorbing layer to retain the outer shell on the impact absorbing layer (connection 20, ruptures, fully breaking and detaching any connection between elements);
and wherein the connector(20) is arranged to allow the outer shell (1,7) to detach (when connection 20 is ruptured) from the impact absorbing layer (8), when the helmet is subject to an impact having an oblique force between 10 and 100N allowing the outer shell to move away from the impact absorbing layer in a direction normal to the top surface of the impact absorbing layer. It is noted the language “when the helmet is subject to an impact having […]” is a functional recitation. The prior art is capable of performing the claimed function, since it teaches a connection that ruptures on impact of force and the outer shell is capable for use to move away from the impact absorbing layer (8) in a direction normal to the top surface of the impact absorbing layer (Figures 12 and 13) since the connection between the elements is removed.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf in view of Chilson (US 2015/0047110). The device of Schimpf substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a hollow cell structure.
The device of Chilson teaches,
With respect to claim 2, wherein the impact absorbing layer comprises a hollow cell structure (para 0011).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to utilize the hollow cell structure taught by Chilson in order to provide improved shock absorbency (para 0014).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf in view of Vito (US 2021/0212403).
The device of Schimpf substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking the claimed thickness. The device of Vito teaches,
With respect to claim 4 wherein the outer shell has a thickness of less than one of: 6 mm, less than 4 mm (para 0147). e.g. less than 2 mm, e.g. less than 0.5 mm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to utilize the thickness taught by Vito in order to provide a low profile (para 0147).
Claim(s) 10, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf in view of Eiler et al (US 11,553,752). The device of Schimpf substantially discloses the claimed invention including,
With respect to claim 10, wherein the connector comprises a plug (20) which extends between the outer shell (1,7) and the impact absorbing liner (8), therein the outer shell comprises an aperture (open area where discrete element 20 is inserted), but is lacking a socket for receiving the plug.
The device of Eiler teaches a connector wherein the connector comprises a plug (70) socket (80, in the force absorbing liner 30) for receiving the plug of the connector (70), and therein the socket is formed on or attached to the outer surface the impact absorbing layer (30).
With respect to claim 14, wherein the plug and the socket attach together via a push fit (Figure 9).
With respect to claim 15, wherein the plug (70)comprises an outer head (42) having dimension(s) greater than the corresponding dimension(s) of the aperture (Figure 9, 56).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the shape of the connector taught by Schimpf with the shape of the connector or Eiler et al. in order to provide a more secure connection during non-impact.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf in view of Pritz et al. (US 9,986,779). The device of Schimpf substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a ridge and groove attachment. The device of Pritz et al teaches,
With respect to claim 20, wherein the impact absorbing layer (80) comprises at least one groove formed therein (86) , wherein the outer shell comprises at least one inwardly projecting ridge (56) , and wherein the at least one ridge is arranged to engage with the at least one groove (86) when the outer shell is mounted on the impact absorbing layer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the shape of the connection of Schimpf with the connection of Pritz et al. in order to provide a more secure fit when not undergoing and impact. In combination, the modified device having wherein the at least one ridge and the at least one groove are arranged such that a particular force is required to remove the at least one ridge from the at least one groove.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf in view of Lee (US 2016/0161222).
The device of Schimpf substantially discloses the claimed invention, including With respect to claim 23, A helmet comprising: an impact absorbing layer (8); an outer shell (1, 7) mounted on the outer surface of the impact absorbing layer (Figure 12 and 13) and a connector (20) which connects the outer shell to the impact absorbing layer to retain the outer shell on the impact absorbing layer (Figures 12, 13), wherein the connector is arranged to allow the outer shell to separate from the impact absorbing layer (Figure 13) when the helmet is subject to an impact (para 0059); and wherein the connector comprises a plug (20), wherein the outer shell comprises a through-opening (area in which discrete element 20 is inserted) for receiving the plug, wherein the plug extends through the through- opening (Figure 12) and attaches to the impact absorbing layer,
The device of Schimpf substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking the plug being in a position so that the plug is accessible from the outside of the outer shell.
The device of Lee teaches placing the plug (50) on the exterior of the outer shell such that it is accessible from the outside of the outer shell.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the location of the plug, as taught by Lee, in order to provide access to the plug directly with the hand (para 0058).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but not persuasive. Applicant argues that the device of Schimpf fails to teach that the outer shell fully separates or detaches from the inner shell. Applicants arguments points to alternative embodiments not applied in the current rejection. Figures 12 and 13 are the embodiment that the examiner relies upon. Element 20 is a connection between the two elements that are otherwise free from attached. The connection is taught to rupture fully upon impact (para 0059) and provides from a fully detachable connection as currently required by the claims.
Applicant states that the insert and the shell rotate together. There is nothing in the claim language that precludes the rotation being together. The claim only requires that the connector is arranged to allow the outer shell to fully separate from the impact absorbing layer when the helmet is subject to an impact. Merriam Webster defines separate as “to sever an association, to become divided or detached”. The impact absorbing layer is separated when the connection severs as it is no longer attached (fixed). The device of Schimpf meets the claim language recited by applicant when interpreted in the broadest reasonable sense. Further, figures 12 shows where the impact absorbing liner (8) is displaced (or separated, at least partially) Figure 13 when the connectors 20 are broken, the outer shell (7) is displaced, at least partially from the impact absorbing layer (Figure 13).
Newly added language “is not fixed to the impact absorbing layer after being separated” is met by Schimpf since there is no fastening present after impact. Fixed is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “securely placed or fastened”. Applicants’ specification states “outer shell is not fixed (e.g. glued, taped or attached permanently by connectors)”. The device of Schimpf teaches an impact absorbing shell with connections (20) that rupture (21) and are no longer securely placed or fastened after impact, meeting the claim language as currently recited when interpreted in the broadest reasonable sense.
Applicants arguments with respect to the amount of force are not persuasive. The claims currently recite “configured to allow the outer shell to fully detach” by a specific amount of force. The prior art is capable of fully detaching, since the attachment is fully ruptured. The applicant seems to be attempting to argue that there is no longer contact between any of the surfaces of the outer layer and the absorbent layer; however that arrangement is not currently required in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
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 RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights