Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/733,061

HELMET WITH AN AIR TRIP

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Apr 29, 2022
Examiner
HADEN, SALLY CLINE
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Trek Bicycle Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
248 granted / 773 resolved
-37.9% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
840
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 773 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 amendment, filed 22 October 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a 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 Status of Claims Withdrawn 11-20 Canceled 3 and 10 Pending 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 Presented for Examination 1-2 and 4-9 Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 102 Rejections as being anticipated by Scheibchen (US 3280402 A) Applicant argues Scheibchen’s air trip/ flute 9 is not “recessed into the outer shell” as required by claim 1 because 9 is in 5 which is covered by 4. This is not persuasive. As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 below, Scheibchen’s element 5 reads on the claimed outer shell and so 9 is recessed into the outer shell 9. Applicant’s argument that the outer shell must be exterior to the energy absorbing layer is not persuasive. The layer that is “outer” depends on the perspective of the observer. Furthermore, “outer shell” does not define the shell relative to the energy absorbing layer, and the Scheibchen outer shell is 5 is outer relative to other helmet components, such as 16 as shown in FIG 1. If Applicant intends the outer shell be mounted on the exterior of the energy absorbing layer, then this has not been claimed. Applicant argues the flute 9 does not extend all the way down to the bottom sides of the helmet. This is not persuasive. The claim does not define the boundaries of the “bottom” and “top” of the helmet. One of ordinary skill would recognize that there would be an imaginary midline going horizontally through the helmet and everything under the midline would be the “bottom” and everything above the midline would be the “top.” Therefore, Scheibchen’s flute 9 extends continuously from a bottom left side, over a top, and to a bottom right side. Applicant argues covering 5 with 4 would prevent 9 from acting as an air trip. This is not persuasive, as there is no requirement in the claim for any element to act as an air trip. 102 Rejections as being anticipated by Rotzin (US 5023958 A) Applicant argues Rotzin’s 15 does not extend continuously from the bottom, over the top, and to the bottom. This is not persuasive. Left and right are relative to the helmet and observer. Observing the helmet from the front of a wearer would make the left and right sides proximate the wearer’s ears. Observing the helmet from a side profile of the wearer would make the left and right sides the front and back of the head. Applicant has not defined the boundaries of the left and right sides nor any other sides of the helmet (e.g. the front and back sides) relative to the other portions of the helmet nor how it is intended to be worn, leaving the left and right sides to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant argues the orientation of 15 would prevent 15 from acting as an air trip. This is not persuasive, as there is no requirement in the claim for any element to act as an air trip. In light of the above, the rejection is believed to be proper. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 01 July 2024 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheibchen (US 3280402 A). As to claim 1, Scheibchen discloses a helmet (“protective headgear,” title) comprising: an energy absorbing layer (4); and an outer shell mounted to the energy absorbing layer (fig 3, pad 5’’ is mounted to the interior of 4; Examiner acknowledges that the disclosed outer shell is mounted exterior to the energy absorbing layer; however, the claim broadly recites “mounted to” and there is nothing in the claim to preclude an outer shell mounted to the interior of an energy absorbing layer), wherein the outer shell includes an air trip (at 9), wherein the air trip comprises a continuous groove recessed into formed in the outer shell (9), and wherein the groove extends continuously from a bottom left side of the helmet, over a top of the helmet, and to a bottom right side of the helmet (fig 3). 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_image1.png 468 858 media_image1.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_image2.png 468 858 media_image2.png Greyscale 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 the energy absorbing layer (single piece foam-only body 11 which includes 17; fig 5b shows the outer shell 11 mounted to the energy absorbing layer 37), wherein the outer shell includes an air trip (at 15), 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 bottom left side of the helmet, over a top of the helmet, and to a bottom right side of the helmet (fig 1 shows 15 extends from the bottom left side of fig 1, over the top, and to the bottom right side of fig 1). 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 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 29, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Oct 14, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 31, 2024
Final Rejection — §102
Apr 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Oct 22, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12543802
INFANT SWADDLING GARMENT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12478121
Surgical Gown
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12471648
Patient gown
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12419362
LIGHT BIB BODY AND BIB
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12414596
HOOD STRUCTURE FOR A GARMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+41.5%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 773 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month