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 response of 3/23/26 has been received and reviewed. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 are amended, and claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-21 are pending.
A power of attorney was received on 9/15/2026 and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: For claim 6, please delete each occurrence of “the at least one flexible forehead strap” and replace with “the flexible forehead strap” for consistency with the recitation of claim 1.
For claim 21, the claim includes redundant limitations previously recited in claim 1 which should be deleted as follows: “wherein the continuous gap is configured to extend between the maximum size and the smaller size while the respective head is movably retained in the coupling point by the flexible entrance.” See claim 1 which recites “the continuous gap being a flexible gap configured to extend between a maximum size and a smaller size via movement of each stem out of and into a flexible entrance of each coupling point while the respective head is movably retained in the coupling point by the flexible entrance.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 364 in Figure 22. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure (filed 4/16/25) is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number “64” is used to denote different structural elements: “distal ends 64 of the outer fingers” (par.50, 51, 59) and “user’s temples 64” (par.72).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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. Claims 7 and 14 recite “a flexible forehead strap extending across a forehead region of the helmet”. The originally filed specification discloses a forehead region of the wearer. Claim 10 recites new matter as claim 8 previously recites two pairs of prongs; therefore, a recitation of two additional pairs of prongs constitutes new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For claim 7, there appears to be missing text in the line starting with “head, the head having a …..” and following the limitation “and wherein the flexible forehead strap;” which renders the claim unclear and indefinite in scope. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 which depends from claim 8. Claim 10 is unclear as it recites “the helmet comprises at least two prongs, wherein the at least two prongs comprise two pairs of prongs, and wherein each prong in the two pairs of prongs comprises a stem and a head…”. However, claim 8 recites “wherein the at least one prong further comprises two pairs of prongs and each prong in the two pairs of prongs comprises the stem and the head and…”. It’s unclear how the helmet has four pairs of prongs and only two pairs of coupling points.
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.
Claims 7, 8, and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Halldin '397. Halldin discloses the invention as claimed. Halldin teaches a helmet for protecting the head of a user, the helmet comprising: at least one liner 2 comprising an inner surface and a lower edge surrounding the inner surface at a helmet opening configured to receive a head of a helmet wearer; at least one coupling point 12 located on the inner surface adjacent the lower edge, a flexible forehead strap 3 extending across a forehead region of the helmet (strap 3 includes headband 3a shown as coextensive with the interior of helmet and considered as extending across a forehead region of the helmet, as the forehead region is not defined but is considered as the region configured to extend over the wearer’s forehead when the helmet is worn) inwardly offset from the inner surface of the at least one liner 2 (by prong 4) and coupled to the inner surface at the at least one coupling point 12 by at least one prong 4 attached to the forehead strap 3 and slidably coupled to the at least one coupling point 12, wherein the at least one prong 4 comprises a stem and a head, the head having a larger cross-section than a cross-section of the stem (see Fig.15) and wherein the flexible forehead strap; a continuous gap between the inner surface of the liner 2 and the flexible forehead strap 3, the continuous gap being a flexible gap configured to extend between a maximum size and a smaller size to thereby adapt the helmet to the head of the helmet user when the helmet is worn, wherein the flexible gap extends between the inner surface and the flexible forehead strap 3 at the at least one coupling point 12 when the at least one prong is slidably coupled to the at least one coupling point 12. The prong 4 slides through the entrance and is retained in the cavity of the female part of the coupling point 12 and slides out of the entrance under strain during an impact or as manipulated by a wearer. There is a space between the prong head 28 and the coupling point cavity surface as shown in Figure 15 such that the head of the prong can extend further into the female part and away from the bottom surface of the female part of the coupling point (“the male part 28 is detached from the female 12 part when a large enough strain is placed on the helmet, in the occurrence of an impact,” par.61), varying the gap size. Paragraph 62 discloses "the distance (gap) between the energy absorbing layer (liner 2) and the attachment device (strap 3) could vary from being practically nothing to being a substantial distance without parting form the concept of the invention." Figure 15 can be relied on for what it reasonably discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) as the decision established that patent drawings, even unscaled, can act as prior art to anticipate (block) new patent claims if they clearly show the invention's structure. Also see PTAB decision of 10/2/2023 for parent application 16/365,596, pages 7-13, with the interpretation of Halldin's Figure 15 as reasonably showing a space or gap between head 28 and female part/coupling point 12 such that the head is movably retained in the coupling point as the continuous gap extends between the maximum size and the smaller size.
For claim 8, the at least one prong further comprises two pairs of prongs 4a-d, each prong in the two pairs of prongs comprises the stem and the head and each stem is slidably coupled with a corresponding flexible entrance of the at least one coupling point and a portion of the stem is configured to remain outside of the flexible entrance. The embodiment of Figure 15 teaches each prong in the two pairs of prongs comprises a stem and a head 28, and wherein each stem is slidably coupled with a corresponding flexible entrance and a portion of the stem is configured to remain outside of the flexible entrance. The stem is slidably coupled with the corresponding flexible entrance of the coupling point 12 as the stem is capable of sliding within the entrance as the head 28 moves further into and away from the coupling point 12, with a portion of the stem configured to remain outside of the flexible entrance (also shown in Figure 15).
For claim 11, an adjustable connector 6 is coupled to the at least one flexible forehead strap 3 and configured to adjust a perimeter of the flexible forehead strap 3.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halldin ’397 in view of Gordon ‘968. Halldin discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Halldin doesn't teach the adjustable connector comprises a knob that decreases the perimeter when adjusted in a first direction and increases the perimeter when adjusted in a second direction different from the first direction. Gordon teaches a helmet including a flexible forehead strap 21 with an adjustable connector 26 coupled to each end 23 of the at least one forehead strap 21, and the knob/adjustable connector 26 decreases the perimeter of the strap when rotated in a first direction and increases the perimeter when rotated in a second direction different from the first direction (col.2, lines 55-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Halldin's strap to provide two ends that are configured to be adjusted relative to one another in order to increase or decrease the strap perimeter by rotating the adjustable connector/knob, as Gordon teaches this strap/knob structure is known in the art for ready adjustment of the fit of the strap on the wearer’s head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 21 are allowed.
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is free of prior art; however, is rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks to the outstanding prior art rejections for all pending claims have been considered. Independent claim 1 and its dependents are considered allowable. For claims 7-12: Applicant submits that Halldin ‘397 doesn’t anticipate claim 7 as fixation members 4 are fixedly attached to the energy absorbing layer 2 and therefore are not slidably coupled to the at least one coupling point. Applicant also submits that Halldin’s gap has a constant size and is not variable between layer 2 and attachment device 3 in the vicinity of the coupling points. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Halldin, as Figure 15 discloses male part 28 of prong 4 detachably connected to the female part/coupling point 12. As discussed in the rejection, Figure 15 can be relied on for what it reasonably discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) as the decision established that patent drawings, even unscaled, can act as prior art to anticipate (block) new patent claims if they clearly show the invention's structure. Also see PTAB decision of 10/2/2023 for parent application 16/365,596, pages 7-13, with the interpretation of Halldin's Figure 15 as reasonably showing a space or gap between head 28 and the cavity surface of female part/coupling point 12 such that the head is movably retained in the coupling point as the continuous gap extends between the maximum size and the smaller size as the head moves towards and away from the cavity surface.
Conclusion
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights