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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, received 13 March 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
Canceled
2-3, 5-8, 16-17
Pending
1, 4, 9-15, 18
Presented for Examination
1, 4, 9-15, 18
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
102 Rejections and 103 Rejections
Newly amended claim 1 incorporates the subject matter of claims 7-8, which were previously rejected under 102 or 103 in view of Bell.
The arguments are drawn to newly added subject matter and are addressed in the rejections below.
In light of the above, the rejection is believed to be proper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“engagement structure” in claim 12. Page 11 line 25-35 of the present specification defines the engagement structure as two front engagement structures configured as a groove in the lower edge of each respective ventilation hole and an aperture, and two rear engagement structures defined by edge portions of the occipital ventilation holes. Please note that the claims do not recite ventilation holes but the specification clearly sets forth ventilation holes in structure of the engagement structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell Sports Inc. (CN 106132227).
As to claim 1, Bell discloses a helmet (see figures) comprising:
an inner lining (80);
an outer shell having an inner surface that faces the inner lining when the helmet is assembled (50); and
at least one releasable connector arrangement adapted to enable the outer shell to be removably attached to the inner lining (combination of 56 and 84), wherein the releasable connector arrangement includes a connecting stem on the outer shell (56), and a receiving channel defined by the inner lining (84 in FIG 3E), wherein the connecting stem is integral to the outer shell and extends from the inner surface of the outer shell through the receiving channel of the inner lining (FIG 3G; the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding);
wherein the releasable connector arrangement further includes a removable cap and a cap connection (90 in FIG 3G, at 58 in FIG 3G), the removable cap being configured to fit over and engage a distal end of the connecting stem to maintain the connecting stem in the receiving channel (FIG 3G), and the cap connection comprising at least one projection on the connecting stem spaced from a slot in the removable cap (at 58 in FIG 3G, spaced from a slot between 59 and 92);
wherein a width of the receiving channel increases towards an opening in the inner lining such that a shoulder is defined in a wall of the inner lining which defines the receiving channel (at 82, at 86 in FIG 3G), and wherein the connecting stem projects beyond the shoulder of the receiving channel such that the distal end of the connecting stem is exposed and spaced from the shoulder when the connecting stem of the outer shell is inserted into the receiving channel of the inner lining in use (FIG 3G, the stem is exposed at least in the intermediate configuration before the cap 90 is attached, FIG 3G shows 56 is spaced from the shoulder at 82), and wherein a width of the removable cap is greater than the width of the receiving channel on the proximal side of the shoulder and directly proximate the shoulder (FIG 3G) such that, in use, the removable cap maintains the connecting stem in the receiving channel by abutting against the shoulder (capable of maintaining by abutting, see FIG 3G);
wherein the removable cap is configured to rotate about the connecting stem by user action from an unlocked configuration wherein the removable cap is positioned over the distal end of the connecting stem to a locked configuration wherein the removeable cap is locked to the distal end of the connecting stem (capable of and intended to rotate, engage, and lock; capable of engaging and intended to engage; 90 FIG 3G locks 80 to 90); and
wherein, in the locked configuration, the removable cap abuts to engage abutment of the removable cap against the shoulder of the receiving channel and locks lock the outer shell onto the inner lining (see FIGS);
wherein the removable cap further comprises a flange portion that is configured to abut the at least one projection in the locked configuration (at 59 and/ or at 92 as shown in FIG 3G), wherein the removable cap is moved from the unlocked to the locked configuration by the user using the slot to rotate the removable cap with respect to the connecting stem such that the flange portion of the removable cap abuts the at least one projection (capable of being moved using the slot, see FIG 3G); and
wherein the removable cap further comprises at least one viewing slot (void/ gap/ interface 59 in FIG 3G), wherein a user is able to view the at least one projection on the connecting stem through the at least one viewing slot when the cap connection is in the locked configuration, and the user is not able to view the at least one projection through the at least one viewing slot when the cap connection is in the unlocked configuration.
The recitation “wherein a user is able to view the at least one projection on the connecting stem through the at least one viewing slot when the cap connection is in the locked configuration, and the user is not able to view the at least one projection through the at least one viewing slot when the cap connection is in the unlocked configuration” is an intended use recitation because the unlocked and locked configurations are functional recitations that are not structural requirements of the claim. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the limitation is dependent upon the user’s vision. FIG 3G shows a locked configuration where 56 is able to be viewed and FIG 3F shows an unlocked configuration where 56 is not able to be viewed (see para. 0055).
As to claim 4, Bell discloses a helmet according to claim 1, wherein the inner lining includes an outer surface which, in use, faces the inner surface of the outer shell (FIG 3G), and an inner surface which, in use, faces the head of a wearer of the helmet (FIG 3G), wherein the receiving channel has aligned openings in the inner and outer surfaces of the inner lining (FIG 3G).
As to claim 18, Bell discloses a helmet according to claim 1, wherein abutment of the removable cap against the shoulder is configured to oppose movement of the removable cap into the receiving channel (capable of opposing movement and withdrawal such as by providing a physical obstacle to movement and withdrawal).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell Sports Inc. (CN 106132227) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Chung (US 8166573 B1).
As to claim 9, Bell does not disclose a helmet according to claim 4, further comprising a strap arrangement for fastening the helmet to a user's head, the strap arrangement being removably attachable to at least one of the inner lining and the outer shell, wherein, in use, at least one portion of the strap arrangement is located between the outer surface of the inner lining and the inner surface of the outer shell.
It is known to provide helmets with straps, in order to keep the helmet fastened to the wearer’s head during impact.
Chung teaches a helmet comprising a strap arrangement for fastening the helmet to a user's head (FIGS 1-3), the strap arrangement being removably attachable to at least one of the inner lining and the outer shell (removably attached by cutting and adhering, for example), wherein, in use, at least one portion of the strap arrangement is located between the outer surface of the inner lining and the inner surface of the outer shell (capable of being located between; the phrase “in use” renders this is an intended use recitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the helmet of Bell with a strap as taught by Chung for the purpose of keeping the helmet fastened to the wearer’s head during impact.
As to claim 10, Bell as modified by Chung discloses a helmet according to claim 9, wherein the strap arrangement is removably attachable to the outer shell (Chung FIGS 1-3, all of the components of the helmet are attached to one another; removably attached by cutting and adhering, for example).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell Sports Inc. (CN 106132227) in view of Chung (US 8166573 B1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Broersma (US 4901373 A).
As to claim 11, Bell as modified by Chung does not disclose a helmet according to claim 10, wherein the outer surface of the inner lining is provided with at least one recess in which said at least one portion of the strap arrangement is located in use.
Broersma teaches a similar helmet (“Helmet retention system with adjustable buckle,” title) including the outer surface of the inner lining (62 in FIG 1) is provided with at least one recess in which said at least one portion of the strap arrangement is located in use (at 11b in FIG 1; col 2 line 65-67 teaches rear strap 16 and 17 attached to 11b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the outer surface of the inner lining is provided with at least one recess in which said at least one portion of the strap arrangement is located in use” in order to provide a known strap attachment structure that is aesthetically appealing.
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