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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-22, 24 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Svendesn (USPN 4,000,520).
Regarding Claim 1, Svendsen discloses a helmet (Figures 1 & 2), comprising: an outer shell (10); a head mount (22) suspended within the outer shell such that, in use, an air gap (gap, see annotated Figure 1 below) is provided between the head mount and the outer shell, the head mount comprising a plurality of straps (22), each strap configured to extend across the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet with the ends of each strap connected (via 28) to the outer shell on opposite sides of the head of the wearer of the helmet (Figure 5); and a head engagement device (24) that is molded or formed to hold a shape configured to conform to a shape of the head of the wearer of the helmet (Col. 3, lines 7-13), the head engagement device mounted on a surface of the head mount that is configured to face the head of the wearer of the helmet such that the head engagement device is positioned between the straps of the head mount and the top of the head of the wearer of the helmet (Figures 1-5); wherein the head engagement device comprises at least one opening (Figure 5, slits shown) through which a strap of the plurality of straps passes, to connect the head engagement device to the head mount non-rigidly, such that the head engagement device can move relative to the straps of the head mount (Col. 3, lines 3-31); a sliding interface is provided between the straps of the head mount and the head engagement device to enable sliding movement of the head engagement device relative to the straps of the head mount (Col. 3, lines 3-31, sliding is possible due to slits for straps), such that the outer shell rotates relative to the head of the wearer, under an oblique impact to the helmet (Col. 3, lines 3-31, the helmet is capable to rotate relative to the head upon the claimed force);
Regarding Claim 3, Svendsen discloses the head mount comprises a-plurality of straps that are configured to extend across the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet (22, Figure 5) and are connected to connection points (points at 28) on the outer shell.
Regarding Claim 4, Svendsen discloses the head mount comprises a-plurality of straps that extend between an opposing pair of connection points (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Svendsen discloses wherein at least two straps of the plurality of straps are connected to each other (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device is connected to the head mount by at least one connector (Figure 5, the connector of the opening of the slit or 36) that engages with one of the straps.
Regarding Claim 7, Svendsen discloses the at least one connector has a first end (the first end of the slit or 36) and a second end (the second end of the slit or 36) that are both joined to the head engagement device at respective first and second locations on the head engagement device (Figure 5); and a strap is located between the connector (Figure 5) and the head engagement device in a region between the first and second locations on the head engagement device (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Svendsen discloses the strap is not fixedly secured to any part of the connector such that the strap can slide relative to the connector (Figure 5 & Col. 3, lines 3-31).
Regarding Claim 9, Svendsen discloses the connector is formed from an elongate section of material, optionally one of a cord, band or a tape (36).
Regarding Claim 10, Svendsen discloses plural connectors are formed from separate pieces of said material (36, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Svendsen discloses plural connectors are formed from sections of a single piece of said material (36).
Regarding Claim 12, Svendsen discloses the head mount comprises at least one strap (22) connected to the front of the outer shell extending in a direction towards the rear of the helmet (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device is provided as a single component (Col. 3, lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 14, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device is formed from plural separate sections (Col. 3, lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 15, Svendsen discloses the head mount comprises a head ring (16) that is configured to engage at least the forehead of a wearer of the helmet (Figures 1 & 2); and the head engagement device comprises a crown region that is configured to be located between the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet and the head mount (Figure 5), and a frontal region that is configured to be located adjacent the head ring (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device further comprises an intermediate region that connects the crown region to the frontal region (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Svendsen discloses the frontal regional of the head engagement device is located between the forehead of the wearer of the helmet and the head ring (Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 18, Svendsen discloses the head ring is located between the forehead of the wearer of the helmet and the frontal regional of the head engagement device (Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 19, Svendsen discloses a front pad (18) positioned to be adjacent the forehead of the wearer of the helmet.
Regarding Claim 20, Svendsen discloses the front pad is connected to at least one of the head ring, the frontal region of the head engagement device and the outer shell (Figures 1 & 2, via 30).
Regarding Claim 21, Svendsen discloses the front pad is connected by elastic connectors (30, clips are spring biased) that are configured to enable the front pad to move relative to the component to which it is connected (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 22, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device comprises one or more pads (Col. 3, lines 7-13) provided on a surface of the head engagement device facing the head of a wearer of the helmet (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 24, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device comprises a plurality of holes (Figure 5, slits shown) that may be configured to provide at least one of a location for a connector to join to the head engagement device and ventilation (slits are capable of providing at least one of a location for a connector to join to the head engagement device and ventilation) .
Regrding Claim 25, Svendsen discloses the low friction sliding interface is provided by a low coefficient of friction between the surfaces of the head mount and the head engagement (Col. 3, lines 3-31, sliding possible due to slits for straps) .
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendesn (USPN 4,000,520).
Regarding Claim 26, Sutter does not specifically disclose in the absence of an impact on the helmet, the separation between the outer shell and the head mount at a location corresponding to the top of the head of a wearer provided by the air gap is at least 10mm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of space for the gap in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the gap involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732