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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, received 07 April 2026, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a non-final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1
Withdrawn
11-20
Canceled
3 and 10
Pending
1-2, 4-9, and 11-20
Presented for Examination
1-2 and 4-9
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
102 Rejections
The amendments to claim 1 overcome the 102 rejections in view of Scheibchen and the rejections are withdrawn. The amendments necessitated a new interpretation of Scheibchen, as set forth in the 103 rejections below.
The arguments with respect to the Rotzin reference are drawn to newly amended claims and are addressed in the rejections below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 01 July 2024 is acknowledged.
Drawings
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 first and second portions of the bottom edge (claim 1; providing an existing figure with reference numbers/ lead lines for the first and second portions of the bottom edge and/ or the boundaries of the air trip/ groove would be sufficient to overcome the objection) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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: “wherein the groove extends continuously from a first portion of a bottom edge of the helmet, over a top of the helmet, and to a second portion of the bottom edge of the helmet” in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-2 and 4-9 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. The new matter is “wherein the groove extends continuously from a first portion of a bottom edge of the helmet, over a top of the helmet, and to a second portion of the bottom edge of the helmet” in claim 1. In Applicant’s 4/7/26 Remarks, it appears Applicant is intending this recitation to mean the air trip/ groove starts and ends at the bottom edge and not spaced from the bottom edge as disclosed by the prior art references. The originally filed disclosure is silent as to this feature. It is not clear from the figures if the groove 205 extends from the bottom edge or if it starts/ ends spaced from the bottom edge. FIG 2D is annotated below to show how 205 may have any number of start/ end points that are either at the bottom edge or spaced from the bottom edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rotzin (US 5023958 A).
As to claim 1, Rotzin discloses a helmet (title) comprising:
an energy absorbing layer (Internal foam liners 37); and
an outer shell mounted to an exterior surface of the energy absorbing layer such that the outer shell is an outermost layer of the helmet (single piece foam-only body 11 which includes 17; fig 5b shows the outer shell 11 mounted to the energy absorbing layer 37; FIGS 1-4 show 11 is the outermost layer), wherein the outer shell includes an air trip that is positioned to reduce an effect of air resistance on the helmet (at 15, capable of reducing an effect of air resistance on the helmet), wherein the air trip comprises a continuous groove recessed into formed in the outer shell (15 alone or both elements 15 in combination), and wherein the groove extends continuously from a first portion of a bottom edge of the helmet, over a top of the helmet, and to a second portion of the bottom edge of the helmet (see annotated FIG 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Rotzin discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the continuous groove has a u- shaped cross-section (fig 3).
As to claim 4, Rotzin discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the air trip has a first curved transition that transitions from the outer shell into a front portion of the air trip (encircled by Examiner in annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
546
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure A An interpretation of Rotzin where the continuous groove is both elements 15 in combination
PNG
media_image4.png
546
599
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure B An interpretation of Rotzin where the continuous groove is one of elements 15 alone
As to claim 5, Rotzin discloses the helmet of claim 4, wherein the air trip has a second curved transition that transitions from the outer shell into a back portion of the air trip (encircled by Examiner in annotated fig 3 above).
As to claim 6, Rotzin discloses the helmet of claim 4, wherein the first curved transition has a first radius of curvature that differs from a second radius of curvature of a bottom of the groove (fig 3).
As to claim 7, Rotzin discloses the helmet of claim 5, wherein the first curved transition has a first radius of curvature and the second curved transition has a second radius of curvature, and wherein the first radius of curvature is the same as the second radius of curvature (fig 3, where the continuous groove is both elements 15 in combination).
As to claim 8, Rotzin discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the air trip is at an angle of 90 degrees relative to an outer surface of the outer shell of the helmet (relative to at least a portion of the outer surface, see annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
610
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Rotzin discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the air trip is at an angle of greater than or less than 90 degrees relative to the outer shell of the helmet (relative to at least a portion of the outer surface, see annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
610
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheibchen (US 3280402 A).
As to claim 1, Scheibchen discloses a helmet (combination of 11, 13, 15, and 5’’) comprising:
an energy absorbing layer (combination of webbing 11 and rubber strap 15; at least 15 is resilient and acts as a cushion as disclosed in col 2 line 10-15); and
an outer shell mounted to an exterior surface of the energy absorbing layer such that the outer shell is an outermost layer of the helmet (pad 5’’ is mounted to the exterior of 11 via 13 as shown in FIG 3 and described in col 1 line 65 – col 2 line 1), wherein the outer shell includes an air trip that is positioned to reduce an effect of air resistance on the helmet (at 9, capable of reducing an effect of air resistance on the helmet), wherein the air trip comprises a continuous groove recessed into formed in the outer shell (9).
Scheibchen does not disclose the groove extends continuously from a first portion of a bottom edge of the helmet, over a top of the helmet, and to a second portion of the bottom edge of the helmet.
Scheibchen does disclose the groove extends continuously from a first portion of a bottom edge of the helmet and over a top of the helmet (see annotated FIG 3 below) but FIG 3 only shows a first portion of a bottom edge of the helmet so it cannot be determined that the groove also extends to a second portion of the bottom edge of the helmet.
However, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the helmet is likely symmetrical and the side view shown in FIG 3 is identical to the opposite side view not shown in the figures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a symmetrical helmet which would result in the groove 9 also extending to a second portion of the bottom edge of the helmet that is identical to the first portion, only on the opposite side of the helmet, in order to protect both sides of the wearer’s head equally.
PNG
media_image6.png
430
685
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Scheibchen discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the continuous groove has a u- shaped cross-section (fig 3).
As to claim 8, Scheibchen discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the air trip is at an angle of 90 degrees relative to an outer surface of the outer shell of the helmet (relative to at least a portion of the outer surface at the peak of the outer shell, see annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
468
858
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Scheibchen discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the air trip is at an angle of greater than or less than 90 degrees relative to the outer shell of the helmet (relative to at least a portion of the outer surface adjacent the air trip, see annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
468
858
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights