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
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 6/23/2026, claims 1, 17, 22-24 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-20, 22-24 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 17 (and dependent claims 18-19, 24), Applicant argues that the amendment “makes clear that the sliding movement occurs during insertion of the central liner portion” (Remarks, page 10); however, no language to this effect has been added to the claim. Examiner maintains that the claim as written is unclear, as described in the rejections below.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 17, Applicant argues that the claim now more clearly defines the measurement of the widths, and Shoei does not meet the claim as amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the amendment introduces issues under 35 USC 112(b), as described in the rejections below. Applicant’s arguments are based on the presumption that the width must be taken on a certain part of the rabbeted edge, but the lack of clarity in how various surfaces and edges are defined by the claim has made it reasonable to use broader interpretations of what a “lateral surface” or “central engagement surface” is, which are not limited to the “rabbeted edges”, as described in the 35 USC 103 rejection of this claim below. Examiner maintains that Shoei in view of Ross reads on the claim as written.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 20, Applicant argues that “claim 20 requires a width relationship between the bottom portion as a portion and the top portion as a portion, not merely the existence of two isolated distances that can be selected somewhere along Shoei’s block interface” (Remarks, page 14). Applicant also argues that “in ordinary usage, a portion being ‘wider than’ another portion refers to the overall width, or at least the greatest transverse extent […] it does not mean that a width may be established by selecting an arbitrary local distance along one part of a portion and comparing it to a different arbitrary local distance along another part of another portion” (Remarks, page 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Examiner notes that the claims are to a “top part” and “bottom part”. The term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Therefore, there is a top part (portion, division, piece, or segment) and a bottom part (portion, division, piece, or segment) that can be defined within the central liner portion with the claimed width relationship, as described in the rejection. Examiner maintains that Shoei in view of Ross reads on the claim as written.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims have the incorrect status identifier. The correct status identifier is (previously presented).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “the central liner portion retains the liner shape and the liner size before, during and after every step of the assembly and installation of the three-piece helmet liner assembly”. This limitation is not supported by sufficient description in the specification as originally filed, so it constitutes new matter. The specification as originally filed does not describe anything regarding the retention of the liner shape and liner size “before, during and after every step of the assembly and installation”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-19, 22-24 are 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 1, the claim recites the limitation “the central liner portion comprising rabbeted edges extending along left and right sides thereof, the rabbeted edges defining: a top part of the central liner portion provided with opposite lateral surfaces and the outer surface, the top part having a first width measured as a straight-line distance between the opposite lateral surfaces; and a bottom part of the central liner portion having central engagement surfaces provided on respective lateral sides thereof and an inner surface adapted to face the cavity of the helmet shell, the bottom part having a second width measured as a straight line distance between the central engagement surfaces”. This limitation is unclear because, firstly, the rabbeted edges are defined as surfaces on the left and right sides of the central liner portion, but then the claim states that those rabbeted edges define “the outer surface [of the top part] and “an inner surface [of the bottom part]”, which is confusing because it is now unclear whether those surfaces are supposed to also be on the left and right sides of the central liner portion or not, and it is also unclear how side edges would be capable of defining surfaces that are not on the sides. Further, the “opposite lateral surfaces [of the top part]” and “central engagement surfaces provided on respective lateral sides [of the bottom part]” are confusing because it is not clear whether those surfaces are also supposed to refer to the same surfaces as the previously recited rabbeted edges? Referring to the same surface with multiple terms introduces confusion into the claim as it becomes unclear how many surfaces are required.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the central liner portion comprising rabbeted edges extending along left and right sides thereof, the rabbeted edges defining: a top part of the central liner portion provided with opposite lateral surfaces and the outer surface, the top part having a first width measured as a straight-line distance between the opposite lateral surfaces; and a bottom part of the central liner portion having central engagement surfaces provided on respective lateral sides thereof and an inner surface adapted to face the cavity of the helmet shell, the bottom part having a second width measured as a straight line distance between the central engagement surfaces”. This limitation is unclear because, firstly, the rabbeted edges are defined as surfaces on the left and right sides of the central liner portion, but then the claim states that those rabbeted edges define “the outer surface [of the top part] and “an inner surface [of the bottom part]”, which is confusing because it is now unclear whether those surfaces are supposed to also be on the left and right sides of the central liner portion or not, and it is also unclear how side edges would be capable of defining surfaces that are not on the sides. Further, the “opposite lateral surfaces [of the top part]” and “central engagement surfaces provided on respective lateral sides [of the bottom part” are confusing because it is not clear whether those surfaces are also supposed to refer to the same surfaces as the previously recited rabbeted edges? Referring to the same surface with multiple terms introduces confusion into the claim as it becomes unclear how many surfaces are required.
Further regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “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, the central liner portion defining a wedge […] in order to self-lock the liner assembly within the helmet shell upon having the central, left and right liner portions engaged with respective portions of the inner surface of the helmet shell”. 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. Examiner notes that although the claim has been amended to clarify the self-locking is occurring “upon having the central, left and right liner portions engaged with respective portions of the inner surface of the helmet shell”, no limitation on when the liner portions are adapted to enable sliding engagement and axial movement has been clarified. The use of “engaged” and “engagement” further adds to the confusion because the use of similar terms “sliding engagement” and the point at which the central, left, and right liner portions are “engaged” appear to imply that the liner portions can be “engaged” in a “sliding” way, which contradicts the “self-lock” limitation. 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.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “the central liner portion retains the liner shape and the liner size before, during and after every step of the assembly and installation of the three-piece helmet liner assembly”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what it means for the central liner portion to “retain” the liner shape and liner size “before, during and after every step of the assembly and installation”. The instant disclosure describes that there are projections/recesses that interlock between the central engagement surface and lateral engagement surfaces, with the projections being disposed on the central engagement surface (see paragraphs 9, 59-61, figures 3-5). If Applicant intends for this limitation to require that the central liner portion is so rigid that its shape and size remains exactly the same during the entire insertion/assembly process, then it is unclear how the projections on the central portion would get into the recesses without any elastic deformation at all if the left/right liner portions are inserted first. Therefore, it appears that some elastic deformation to fit the central liner portion into the central gap must be permissible as long as the final shape following insertion is the same as the shape before insertion, and the claim has been interpreted as such. In other words, the central liner portion has a liner shape and liner size, and it will be considered to have “retained” that liner shape and size before, during and after installation/assembly even if it must deform slightly to be put into position, as long as it is not permanently deformed and still returns to its original shape in the end (for example, like how a stress ball can be compressed but will return to its original shape once a person stops squeezing it).
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 opposite lateral surfaces and the outer surface, the top part having a first width measured as a straight-line distance between the opposite lateral surfaces; and a bottom part of the central liner portion having central engagement surfaces provided on respective lateral sides thereof and an inner surface adapted to face the cavity of the helmet shell, the bottom part 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), wherein the first width and the second width are measured in a same transverse cross-section of the central liner portion, the transverse cross-section being perpendicular to a front-to-rear length of the central liner portion (see annotated figure 1 below, the cross section in the figure is a transverse cross section that is perpendicular to a front-rear direction, so the first and second widths are measured in the same transverse cross section), 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
423
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 showing the central and lateral engagement surfaces/rabbeted edges and first and second widths
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 opposite lateral surfaces and the outer surface, the top part having a first width measured as a straight-line distance between the opposite lateral surfaces; and a bottom part of the central liner portion having central engagement surfaces provided on respective lateral sides thereof and an inner surface adapted to face the cavity of the helmet shell, the bottom part 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 first width and the second width are measured in a same transverse cross-section of the central liner portion, the transverse cross-section being perpendicular to a front-to-rear length of the central liner portion (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, the cross section in the figure is a transverse cross section that is perpendicular to a front-rear direction, so the first and second widths are measured in the same transverse cross section), 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, as best understood by Examiner, 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 retains the liner shape and the liner size before, during and after every step of the assembly and installation of the three-piece helmet liner assembly (the central liner portion has a liner shape and liner size, and is be considered to have “retained” that liner shape and size before, during, and after every step of assembly/installation even if it may deform slightly to be put into position, as long as it still returns to its original shape in the end because it still retains (has) its original shape/size and it was not permanently deformed).
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 insertion with the central gap between the left and right liner portions (the central liner portion has a liner shape and liner size, and is be considered to have “retained” that liner shape and size during insertion even if it may deform slightly to be put into position, as long as it still returns to its original shape in the end because it still retains (has) its original shape/size and it was not permanently deformed), 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, 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 insertion with the central gap between the left and right liner portions (the central liner portion has a liner shape and liner size, and is be considered to have “retained” that liner shape and size during insertion even if it may deform slightly to be put into position, as long as it still returns to its original shape in the end because it still retains (has) its original shape/size and it was not permanently deformed), 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.
Examiner Note
Examiner respectfully suggests the following wording for claims 1 and 17 so that the opposite lateral surfaces of the top part and central engagement surfaces of the bottom part are defined as parts of the rabbeted edges, which appears to align with the specification and drawings and would improve the clarity of the claims:
“the central liner portion comprising rabbeted edges extending along left and right sides thereof, the rabbeted edges comprising:
opposite lateral surfaces of a top part of the central liner, the top part having a first width measured as a straight-line distance between the opposite lateral surfaces; and
central engagement surfaces provided on respective lateral sides of a bottom part of the central liner, the bottom part having a second width measured as a straight-line distance between the central engagement surfaces, the second width being greater than the first width, wherein the first width and the second width are measured in a same transverse cross-section of the central liner portion, the transverse cross-section being perpendicular to a front-rear length of the central liner portion”
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.
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
Prosecution Insights