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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 1/23/2026, claims 1, 7-8, 17, 20, 22 are amended. Claims 6 and 21 are canceled. Claims 23-24 are new. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-20, 22-24 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejections, but not all of them.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, Applicant asserts that the removal of the “engagement configuration” language renders the rejections moot. Examiner agrees that some of the rejections have been overcome by the amendment; however, not all of them have been overcome, as described in the rejections below.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections, Applicant asserts that the newly added limitations overcome the prior art, namely Shoei in view of Ross, because Shoei does not teach the newly added limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that Shoei teaches the limitations regarding the width of the top and bottom parts of the central liner portion as claimed. As described in the rejection below, Shoei teaches a central liner portion with a top part having a first width and a bottom part having a second width, the second width being greater than the first width, insofar as claimed. Examiner notes that neither Applicant’s arguments nor the claim language define how the width is intended to be measured (i.e. from what location on the top part/bottom part) so it is understood that the width can be measured from any point on either part. See annotated figure 1 of Shoei provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection below showing how a first width and a second width as claimed can be defined on the central liner portion of Shoei. Examiner therefore maintains that Shoei reads on the claims as currently written.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from the independent claims; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, the independent claims are not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 21, 23-24 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 21 are canceled and therefore should be presented without any text. MPEP 714(II)(C)(C) states: “A claim being canceled must be indicated as "canceled;" the text of the claim must not be presented.”
Claims 23-24 are new and therefore should not include markup/underlining. MPEP 714(II)(C)(B) states: “Any claims added by amendment must be indicated as "new" and the text of the claim must not be underlined.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17-19, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the left and right liner portions define a central gap therebetween, the left and right liner portions being shaped and sized to define a stepped central gap”. This limitation is unclear because, as written, it appears to require both a “central gap” AND a “stepped central gap”. However, there only appears to be a single central gap shown in the instant disclosure, and it appears that Applicant intended to claim that the central gap is stepped (for example, as defined in claim 20). For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as requiring a stepped central gap.
Further regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the central liner portion defining a wedge configured to generate outwardly oriented forces on the left and right liner portions to bias the left and right liner portions away from the central liner portion and against respective inner surface portions in order to self-lock the liner assembly within the helmet shell” followed immediately by “the left and right liner portions being adapted to enable sliding engagement and axial movement of the central liner portion along the central gap from the bottom opening to the central inner surface portion”. These two limitations appear to contradict each other, as it is unclear how the liner assembly should be “self-locked” in place at the same time that the central liner portion is supposed to be capable of sliding/axial movement. It appears based on the disclosure that the sliding state is only intended to occur during the insertion of the central liner portion, and for the purposes of examination, the claim limitation has been interpreted as such; however, clarification within the claim language is respectfully requested.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-9, 12-15, 17-20, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoei Kako KK (JPH07109609A), hereinafter Shoei, in view of Ross (US 5181279).
Regarding claim 1, Shoei discloses: A helmet comprising: a helmet shell (shell 4) having an inner surface defining a cavity, a bottom opening (lower opening 3) and a frontal opening (window hole 2); a liner assembly insertable within the cavity via the bottom opening and adapted to engage with the inner surface of the helmet shell (shock absorbing liner 5; “shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell” paragraph 9; “central bock B1 […] inserted from its front end [through] the lower opening 3 of the shell 4” paragraph 16; “insert the left and right side block B2 along its inner surface from the lower opening 3 of the shell” paragraph 17), the liner assembly comprising: a lateral liner portion comprising a left liner portion (left block B2) and a right liner portion (right block B2), each of the left and right liner portions having an outer surface complementarily shaped relative to left and right inner surface portions of the inner surface, respectively, and configured to engage with same (“shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell 4” paragraph 9; Examiner notes that the left and right blocks B2 are parts of the shock absorbing liner 5, therefore their outer surfaces are fitted to the inner surface of the shell), where the left liner portion includes a left chin segment (chin cover portion 5c; Examiner notes that this portion is present on both the left side and the right side, see figure 3), and the right liner portion includes a right chin segment (chin cover portion 5c; Examiner notes that this portion is present on both the left side and the right side, see figure 3), the left and right chin segments being configured to engage one another proximate a front section of the helmet shell (“eliminating the center small block B3, the left and right side block B2 [are] divided in the middle of the chin cover portion 5c” paragraph 24), wherein the left and right liner portions are configured to engage the cavity via the bottom opening (“insert the left and right side block B2 along its inner surface from the lower opening 3 of the shell” paragraph 17); and a central liner portion (central block B1) having an outer surface complementarily shaped relative to a central inner surface portion for engagement therewith (“shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell 4” paragraph 9; Examiner notes that the central block B1 is part of the shock absorbing liner 5, therefore its outer surface is fitted to the inner surface of the shell) and angled sided surfaces defining a wedge (see annotated figure 1 below showing the angled side surfaces), the central liner portion being configured to be inserted within the cavity via the bottom opening (“central bock B1 […] inserted from its front end [through] the lower opening 3 of the shell 4” paragraph 16), the central liner portion comprising central engagement surfaces provided on either side thereof (see annotated figure 1 below which shows the location of the engagement surfaces; Examiner notes that although they are only shown on one side in the annotated figure 1, they are present on both sides as is evident in figure 3), the central liner portion comprising rabbeted edges extending along left and right sides thereof (see figure 1 of Shoei annotated below; Examiner notes that this edge is also present on the opposite side, as evident in figure 3), the rabbeted edges defining a top part of the central liner portion provided with the outer surface and having a first width, and a bottom part of the central liner portion adapted to face the cavity of the helmet shell and having a second width, the second width being greater than the first width (see annotated figure 1 below showing the widths, the second width being greater than the first width; Examiner notes that although only half of the cross section of the helmet is shown in the figure, the helmet is symmetric and the widths would also extend in a mirror image fashion on the other side (as shown in dashed lines), so the total second width would still be greater than the total first width), and the left and right liner portions comprising respective lateral engagement surfaces configured to engage with the central engagement surfaces (see annotated figure 1 below which shows the location of the engagement surfaces and how they are engaged; Examiner notes that although they are only shown on one side in the annotated figure 1, they are present on both sides as is evident in figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
300
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 showing the central and lateral engagement surfaces/rabbeted edges and first and second widths; the
Shoei does not explicitly disclose: upon engaging with the left and right inner surface portions, the left and right liner portions define a central gap therebetween, and wherein the central liner portion is configured to be inserted within the cavity via the bottom opening for engaging the central gap between previously installed left and right liner portions, and wherein the wedge is configurated to generate outwardly oriented forces on the left and right liner portions to bias the left and right liner portions away from the central liner portion and against respective inner surface portions in order to tighten the liner assembly within the helmet shell, the central engagement surfaces and the lateral engagement surfaces being oriented to enable insertion of the central liner portion within the central gap from the bottom opening to the central inner surface portion such that the central liner portion engages the central inner surface portion.
However, Ross teaches a helmet with liner inserts. Specifically, Ross teaches “the inserts are formed of a foam compressible material to enhance cushioning in use and accommodate application of the element construction to individuals of various head sizes to thereby permit utilization of the single helmet by a plurality of individuals” (column 4, lines 3-8).
Ross teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the liner inserts of Shoei out of a foam compressible material as taught by Ross in order to “enhance cushioning in use and accommodate application of the element construction to individuals of various head sizes to thereby permit utilization of the single helmet by a plurality of individuals” (Ross, column 4, lines 4-8). Then further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to try inserting the central portion after inserting the left and right portions as there are a finite number of possible ways to insert the portions (left then right then center, right then left then center, left then center then right, right then center then left, center then left then right, or center then right then left), each of which would have a reasonable expectation of success in assembling the liner portions as a compressible foam material is flexible enough to permit the user to manipulate and squish each piece temporarily during the insertion such that the liner pieces fit into the helmet shell regardless of the order in which they are inserted. Examiner notes that if the center portion is inserted after the left and right portions, the central engagement surfaces and the lateral engagement surfaces are configured to cooperate and engage one another during insertion of the central liner portion from the bottom opening to the central inner surface portion. Examiner further notes that the engagement surfaces are shaped and sized to bias the left and right liner portions outwardly and away from the central liner portion insofar as claimed; see comparison of figure 1 of Shoei compared to figure 9 of the instant application below, and how the shape of the interface between the liner portions are the same therefore they are oriented to enable the insertion of the central liner portion as claimed. Additionally, Examiner notes that the action of inserting the central liner portion between the left and right liner portions requires that a force is applied to the central liner portion to push it into place, which would cause a wedging and outwardly oriented forces against the left and right liner portions to bias the left and right liner portions away from the central liner portion and against respective inner surface portions to tighten the liner assembly within the helmet shell at least during the process of insertion as claimed, and during the process of insertion the central liner portion is being inserted into place against the inner surface of the helmet shell, therefore it engages a central inner surface portion of the helmet shell as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
504
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
484
492
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Shoei (left) compared to figure 9 of the instant application, showing the similar shape of the engagement surfaces on each
Regarding claim 2, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the complementarily shaped outer surfaces of the left and right liner portions and the left and right inner surface portions are adapted to engage one another to at least partially reduce relative movement between the left and right liner portions and the helmet shell (Shoei, “shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell 4” paragraph 9; Examiner notes that the left and right blocks B2 are parts of the shock absorbing liner 5, therefore their outer surfaces are fitted to left and right portions of the inner surface of the shell, which would at least partially reduce relative movement between the left and right liner portions and the helmet shell insofar as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, Shoei as modified does not explicitly disclose: The helmet of claim 1, wherein each central engagement surface comprises one or more projections extending therefrom, and wherein each lateral engagement surface comprises one or more recesses adapted to receive respective projections therein, the projections and recesses being adapted to cooperate to at least partially reduce relative movement between the central liner portion and the left and right liner portions.
However, Ross further teaches helmet liner portions with one or more projections (projections 30) extending therefrom that cooperate with one or more recesses (cavities 29) on a different liner portion adapted to receive respective projections therein (“each insert 24 includes a first planar side wall 27 formed with first side wall cavities 29 spaced apart a predetermined spacing that cooperate with a plurality of second side wall projections 30, wherein each projection of the second projections 30 are received within an individual side wall cavity 29 of the plurality of side wall cavities of an adjacent insert” column 4, lines 8-15; see figure 6), the projections and recesses being adapted to cooperate to at least partially reduce relative movement between the liner portions (the projections and recesses would necessarily cooperate to at least partially reduce relative movement between the liner portions).
Ross teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the projections to the central engagement surfaces and recesses to the lateral engagement surfaces as taught by Ross in order to “[permit] ease of assembly and assembly of the inserts in use” (Ross, column 4, lines 21-22). Further, it would make the coupling engagement between the inserts even more secure, which would better ensure that they stay assembled in the proper configuration during use of the helmet.
Regarding claim 7, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein each rabbeted edge comprises at least one angled surface configured to bias the left and right liner portions outwardly and away from the central liner portion upon engagement of the central liner portion between the left and right liner portions (see figure 1 of Shoei annotated above with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 showing that there is at least one angled surface on each rabbeted edge; Examiner notes that this edge is also present on the opposite side, as evident in figure 3 of Shoei).
Regarding claim 8, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the left and right liner portions each include an overhang adapted to engage respective rabbeted edges and define rabbet joints therewith (see annotated figure 1 of Shoei below showing the overhang; Examiner notes that the same structure is also present on the opposite side not shown).
PNG
media_image5.png
280
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 of Shoei showing the overhang on the left (and right) portions
Regarding claim 9, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the central liner portion extends from a rear section of the helmet shell proximate the bottom opening, along the central inner surface portion and to the front section proximate the frontal opening (see figure 2 of Shoei showing how the central liner portion B1 extends from a rear section of the helmet shell proximate the bottom opening and to the front section proximate the front opening).
Regarding claim 12, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, further comprising a chin guard provided at the front section of the helmet shell and at least partially defining a periphery of the frontal opening (Shoei, chin cover portion 1c), and wherein the left and right chin segments extend along the chin guard on respective sides thereof and engage one another substantially at a middle point of the chin guard (Shoei, “eliminating the center small block B3 the left and right side block B2 [are] divided in the middle of the chin cover portion 5c” paragraph 24; Examiner notes that “chin cover portion 1c” refers to the chin portion on the helmet shell, while “chin cover portion 5c” refers to the same area on the helmet liner; see figure 1 showing how the chin segments of the liner extend along the chin guard on the shell, and also see paragraph 9 which describes how the entire liner is fitted to the inside of the shell).
Regarding claim 13, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein each one of the left and right chin segments includes an engagement surface adapted to engage the engagement surface of the other one of the left and right chin segments (by being divided at the middle of the chin cover portion, the left and right side blocks B2 of Shoei must each have a corresponding engagement surface at that dividing line, which are adapted to engage each other).
Regarding claim 14, Shoei as modified does not explicitly disclose: The helmet of claim 13, wherein one of the engagement surfaces comprises a protrusion, and wherein another one of the engagement surfaces comprises a recess adapted to receive the protrusion therein when the engagement surfaces engage one another.
However, Shoei teaches an engagement between two pieces of helmet lining that utilizes a protrusion on one engagement surface, and a recess on the other engagement surface, wherein the recess is adapted to receive the protrusion therein (see figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
462
487
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Shoei showing the engagement surfaces with a projection and a recess
Shoei teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the engagement surfaces of the left liner portion and the right liner portion with a projection and a recess, respectively, as taught by Shoei in order to make the coupling between the left and right portions more secure, which would prevent the left and right portions from moving relative to each other when the helmet is worn and ensure that the entire chin area of the user is always protected.
Regarding claim 15, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein each one of the left liner portion, the right liner portion and the central liner portion is made of a single piece (see figure 3 of Shoei showing the exploded view of the individual liner portions, showing that each one is a single piece; Examiner notes that the small central block B3 is eliminated as per paragraph 24 of Shoei, as described in detail above with respect to the definitions of the left and right liner portions in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, and the left and right portions are extended accordingly to meet in the middle of the chin portion as described in paragraph 24 of Shoei).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood by Examiner, Shoei discloses: A helmet liner assembly for installation within a cavity of a helmet shell along an inner surface thereof, the helmet liner assembly comprising: a lateral liner portion comprising a left liner portion (left block B2) and a right liner portion (right block B2), each of the left and right liner portions having an outer surface complementarily shaped relative to left and right inner surface portions of the inner surface, respectively, and configured to engage with same (“shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell 4” paragraph 9; Examiner notes that the left and right blocks B2 are parts of the shock absorbing liner 5, therefore their outer surfaces are fitted to the inner surface of the shell), a central liner portion (central block B1) engageable between the left and right liner portions and having an outer surface complementarily shaped relative to a central inner surface portion for engagement therewith (“shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell 4” paragraph 9; Examiner notes that the central block B1 is part of the shock absorbing liner 5, therefore its outer surface is fitted to the inner surface of the shell), the central liner portion comprising rabbeted edges extending along left and right sides thereof (see figure 1 of Shoei annotated provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above; Examiner notes that this edge is also present on the opposite side, as evident in figure 3), the rabbeted edges defining a top part of the central liner portion provided with the outer surface and having a first width, and a bottom part of the central liner portion adapted to face the cavity of the helmet shell and having a second width, the second width being greater than the first width (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the widths, the second width being greater than the first width; Examiner notes that although only half of the cross section of the helmet is shown in the figure, the helmet is symmetric and the widths would also extend in a mirror image fashion on the other side (as shown in dashed lines), so the total second width would still be greater than the total first width), wherein the left and right liner portions are configured to engage the cavity via the bottom opening (“insert the left and right side block B2 along its inner surface from the lower opening 3 of the shell” paragraph 17), the left and right liner portions being shaped and sized to define a stepped central gap having a top gap portion adapted to receive the top part of the central liner portion, and a bottom gap portion adapted to receive the bottom part of the central liner portion (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the top and bottom part of the central liner portion and their widths; Examiner notes that the central liner portion fills the central gap when inserted, therefore the top and bottom parts of the central liner when inserted (as shown in the figure) align with the top and bottom parts of the central gap); and wherein the central liner portion is configured to be inserted within the cavity via the bottom opening (“central bock B1 […] inserted from its front end [through] the lower opening 3 of the shell 4” paragraph 16), the central liner portion defining a wedge (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the angled side surfaces).
Shoei does not explicitly disclose: upon engaging with the left and right inner surface portions, the left and right liner portions define the central gap therebetween; and wherein the central liner portion is configured to be inserted within the cavity via the bottom opening for engaging the central gap, and wherein the wedge is configurated to generate outwardly oriented forces on the left and right liner portions to bias the left and right liner portions away from the central liner portion and against respective inner surface portions in order to self-lock the liner assembly within the helmet shell, the left and right liner portions being adapted to enable sliding engagement and axial movement of the central liner portion within the central gap from the bottom opening to the central inner surface portion such that the central liner portion engages the central inner surface portion.
However, Ross teaches a helmet with liner inserts. Specifically, Ross teaches “the inserts are formed of a foam compressible material to enhance cushioning in use and accommodate application of the element construction to individuals of various head sizes to thereby permit utilization of the single helmet by a plurality of individuals” (column 4, lines 3-8).
Ross teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the liner inserts of Shoei out of a foam compressible material as taught by Ross in order to “enhance cushioning in use and accommodate application of the element construction to individuals of various head sizes to thereby permit utilization of the single helmet by a plurality of individuals” (Ross, column 4, lines 4-8). Then further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to try inserting the central portion after inserting the left and right portions as there are a finite number of possible ways to insert the portions (left then right then center, right then left then center, left then center then right, right then center then left, center then left then right, or center then right then left), each of which would have a reasonable expectation of success in assembling the liner portions as a compressible foam material is flexible enough to permit the user to manipulate and squish each piece temporarily during the insertion such that the liner pieces fit into the helmet shell regardless of the order in which they are inserted. Examiner notes that if the center portion is inserted after the left and right portions, the central engagement surfaces and the lateral engagement surfaces are configured to cooperate and engage one another during insertion of the central liner portion from the bottom opening to the central inner surface portion. Examiner further notes that the engagement surfaces are shaped and sized to bias the left and right liner portions outwardly and away from the central liner portion insofar as claimed; see comparison of figure 1 of Shoei compared to figure 9 of the instant application provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, and how the shape of the interface between the liner portions are the same, therefore they are oriented to enable the insertion of the central liner portion as claimed. Additionally, Examiner notes that the action of inserting the central liner portion between the left and right liner portions requires that a force is applied to the central liner portion to push it into place, which would cause a wedging and outwardly oriented forces against the left and right liner portions to bias the left and right liner portions away from the central liner portion and against respective inner surface portions to tighten the liner assembly within the helmet shell at least during the process of insertion as claimed, and during the process of insertion the central liner portion is being inserted into place against the inner surface of the helmet shell, so the left and right liner portions are adapted to enable sliding engagement and axial movement of the central liner portion along the central gap from the bottom opening to the central inner surface portion because the central liner portion is capable of being inserted as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Shoei as modified discloses; A method of installing a helmet liner assembly as defined in claim 17 within a helmet shell, comprising: inserting the left liner portion within the cavity for engagement with the left inner surface portion; inserting the right liner portion within the cavity for engagement with the right inner surface portion, the left liner portion and the right liner portion defining a central gap therebetween; and following the insertion of the left liner portion and the right liner portion, inserting the central liner portion within the cavity along the central gap between the left and right liner portions for engagement therewith to wedge and bias the left and right liner portions towards the left and right inner surface portions, respectively (as modified, the left and right liner portions are inserted before the central liner portion, and the central liner portion is inserted into the gap between the left and right liner portions). Examiner further notes that because this claim depends from claim 17, which is an apparatus claim, this limitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability in a product by process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 19, Shoei as modified discloses: The method of claim 18, wherein the steps of inserting the left liner portion and the right liner portion within the cavity are done simultaneously (Shoei, “insert the left and right side block B2 along its inner surface from the lower opening 3 of the shell” paragraph 17; as the left and right side block are described as being inserted in a single step, their insertion is considered to occur simultaneously). Examiner further notes that because this claim depends from claim 17, which is an apparatus claim, this limitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability in a product by process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 20, Shoei discloses: A method of assembling and installing a three-piece helmet liner assembly within a helmet shell, comprising: inserting a left liner portion made of a single piece of material within a cavity of the helmet shell for engagement with a left inner surface portion thereof (“insert the left […] side block B2 along its inner surface from the lower opening 3 of the shell” paragraph 17; “shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell 4” paragraph 9; Examiner notes that the left and right blocks B2 are parts of the shock absorbing liner 5, therefore the left liner portion engages with the inner surface of the shell); inserting a right liner portion made of a single piece of material within the cavity for engagement with a right inner surface portion thereof (“insert the left […] side block B2 along its inner surface from the lower opening 3 of the shell” paragraph 17; “shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell 4” paragraph 9; Examiner notes that the left and right blocks B2 are parts of the shock absorbing liner 5, therefore the left liner portion engages with the inner surface of the shell), the left liner portion and the right liner portion defining a stepped central gap therebetween, the stepped central gap having a top gap portion adjacent the helmet shell and a bottom gap portion communicating with the top gap portion and spaced from the helmet shell, the bottom gap portion being wider than the top gap portion (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the top and bottom part of the central liner portion and the first and second widths; Examiner notes that the central liner portion fills the central gap when inserted, therefore the top and bottom parts of the central liner when inserted (as shown in the figure) align with the top and bottom parts of the central gap), and, inserting a central liner portion made of a single piece within the cavity for engagement therewith (“the central block B1 [is] inserted from its front end [from] the lower opening 3 of the shell” paragraph 16; “shock absorbing liner 5 which is fitted to the inner surface of the shell 4” paragraph 9; Examiner notes that the central block B1 is parts of the shock absorbing liner 5, therefore the central liner portion engages with the inner surface of the shell), the central liner portion having a top part engageable within the top gap portion and against the helmet shell and a bottom part engageable within the bottom gap portion, the bottom part being wider than the top part (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the top and bottom part and the first and second widths) the three-piece helmet liner assembly being adapted to cover a substantially complete inner surface of the helmet shell (see figures 1 and 2; the three pieces cover substantially the entire inner surface of the helmet shell).
Shoei does not explicitly disclose and following the insertion of the left liner portion and the right liner portion, inserting the central liner portion in the stepped central gap between the left and right liner portions, wherein wedging the central liner portion generates an outwardly oriented biasing force to bias the left and right liner portions against corresponding inner surface portions of the helmet shell during insertion of the central liner portion along the central gap.
However, Ross teaches a helmet with liner inserts. Specifically, Ross teaches “the inserts are formed of a foam compressible material to enhance cushioning in use and accommodate application of the element construction to individuals of various head sizes to thereby permit utilization of the single helmet by a plurality of individuals” (column 4, lines 3-8).
Ross teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the liner inserts of Shoei out of a foam compressible material as taught by Ross in order to “enhance cushioning in use and accommodate application of the element construction to individuals of various head sizes to thereby permit utilization of the single helmet by a plurality of individuals” (Ross, column 4, lines 4-8). Then further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to try inserting the central portion after inserting the left and right portions as there are a finite number of possible ways to insert the portions (center then left and right or left and right then center), each of which would have a reasonable expectation of success in assembling the liner portions as a compressible foam material is flexible enough to permit the user to manipulate and squish each piece temporarily during the insertion such that the liner pieces fit into the helmet shell regardless of the order in which they are inserted. Examiner notes that the action of inserting the central liner portion between the left and right liner portions requires that a force is applied to the central liner portion to push it into place, which would cause a wedging and outwardly oriented biasing force at least during the process of insertion as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, Shoei as modified discloses: The method of claim 20, wherein the central liner portion has a liner shape and size when inserted in the cavity (the central liner portion is inserted as described in paragraph 9 of Shoei, and when it is inserted it has a shape and size), wherein the central liner portion is wedged in the central gap while retaining the liner shape and the liner size (when the central liner portion is wedged in the central gap, it has the same liner shape and size, as previously defined because it is inserted in the central gap), and wherein the central liner portion engages a central inner surface portion of the helmet shell while still retaining the liner shape and size (when the central liner portion is inserted, it engages the central inner surface portion of the helmet shell, and since it has been inserted, it has the same liner shape and size as previously defined).
Regarding claim 23, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the central liner portion comprises a one-piece structure having a liner shape and a liner size (central block B1 is one piece; it has a shape and size), and wherein the central liner portion is adapted to retain the liner shape and the liner size during insertion within the cavity (the central liner portion may retain its liner shape and size during insertion within the cavity, for example if the central liner portion is simply placed/dropped into the helmet cavity, since the helmet cavity as a whole is larger than the central liner portion), during engagement with the central gap (when the central liner portion is fully inserted, it is engaged with the central gap, and it has the same liner shape and size as previously defined because it is fully inserted in the central gap), and for engagement with the central inner surface portion of the helmet shell (when the central liner portion is fully inserted, it engages the central inner surface portion of the helmet shell, and since it has been inserted, it has the same liner shape and size as previously defined).
Regarding claim 24, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 17, w wherein the central liner portion comprises a one-piece structure having a liner shape and a liner size (central block B1 is one piece; it has a shape and size), and wherein the central liner portion is adapted to retain the liner shape and the liner size during insertion within the cavity (the central liner portion may retain its liner shape and size during insertion within the cavity, for example if the central liner portion is simply placed/dropped into the helmet cavity, since the helmet cavity as a whole is larger than the central liner portion), during engagement with the central gap (when the central liner portion is fully inserted, it is engaged with the central gap, and it has the same liner shape and size as previously defined because it is fully inserted in the central gap), and for engagement with the central inner surface portion of the helmet shell (when the central liner portion is fully inserted, it engages the central inner surface portion of the helmet shell, and since it has been inserted, it has the same liner shape and size as previously defined).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoei/Ross in view of Whitesell (US 2022/0330646).
Regarding claim 10, Shoei as modified does not explicitly disclose: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the central liner portion comprises a frontal segment adapted to be spaced from the inner surface of the helmet shell, thereby defining a gap therebetween.
However, Whitesell teaches a helmet with an outer shell (outer shell 501) and a liner (foam layer 301), wherein the liner comprises a frontal segment adapted to be spaced from the inner surface of the helmet shell, thereby defining a gap therebetween (see figure 6B copied below). Whitesell further teaches “pivot mechanisms are disposed in the void in a region of the helmet body corresponding or proximate to the temporal regions [of] a user wearing the helmet. The pivot mechanisms provide the ability to pivot a visor or eyeshield between a first position in which it is stored in the cavity of the helmet and a second position in which it [is] deployed to protect or shield the eyes of the user of the helmet” (paragraph 66).
PNG
media_image7.png
622
566
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 6B of Whitesell, showing the gap between the outer shell and the foam liner
Whitesell teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the pivoting visor as taught by Whitesell, which would necessitate forming the cavity in between the helmet outer shell and the liner as also taught by Whitesell, in order to provide additional protection to the front of the helmet and allow the user to selectively lower and raise the visor as desired depending on environmental conditions and visibility needs. Further, by containing the visor within a cavity between the helmet shell and liner, there is no need to pierce the shell of the helmet to mount the visor which would avoid inducing weak spots on the helmet, and there would be no additional undesirable catch-points or decreased aerodynamic performance that would be present with an externally mounted visor (see paragraph 4 of Whitesell). Examiner notes that, as modified, the gap would extend into the left portion, right portion, and center portion of the liner, as the visor would need to cover the entire front opening of the helmet and recede into the area above that front opening, and as shown in figures 1 and 2, parts of the left and right portions are located above the front opening of the helmet.
PNG
media_image8.png
476
651
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2 of Shoei showing how parts of the lateral liners (left and right) would need to have a gap in order to receive the visor as taught by Whitesell
Regarding claim 11, Shoei as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 10, wherein the left and right liner portions comprise respective forward segments adapted to be spaced from the inner surface of the helmet shell, and wherein the forward segments and the frontal segment together define a continuous surface spaced from the inner surface of the helmet shell such that the gap is defined between the inner surface of the helmet shell and the continuous surface (as described in the modification in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 10 above, the central, left, and right portions of the liner would have a continuous gap to receive the visor).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoei/Ross in view of Bouchard-Fortin (US 2017/0224043).
Regarding claim 16, Shoei does not explicitly disclose: The helmet of claim 1, further comprising a chin brace removably coupled to the left and right chin segments and extending along the periphery of the frontal opening to reinforce the left and right chin segments within the cavity.
However, Bouchard-Fortin teaches a chin brace (jaw shield 120) removably coupled to left and right chin segments (“latches 182 on either side of the inner face of shield portion 122” paragraph 54; “the mechanism also allows removal of the jaw shield 129 by unmounting the male latch element from the female element. Accordingly, the movable jaw shield may be detached entirely from the helmet” paragraph 55; see figure 4 showing the attachment openings 170, 172 where the latches 182 attach on either side) and extending along the periphery of the frontal opening to reinforce the left and right chin segments within the cavity (see figure 4 showing that the jaw shield extends along the periphery of the frontal opening and would therefore necessarily reinforce the left and right chin segments insofar as claimed or described).
Bouchard-Fortin teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the moving jaw shield as taught by Bouchard-Fortin to the helmet of Shoei in order to allow “replacement or customization” of the front chin portion of the helmet, for instance “depending on the kind of use and weather conditions” as well as to customize the ventilation properties of the helmet “as such different ventilation control and/or air filter may be desired to optimize the helmet breath box behavior” (see paragraph 55 of Bouchard-Fortin). This would allow the user to optimize the helmet’s properties and appearance based on their own preferences in different environmental conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732