DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 20 July 2026, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1, 11-12, 14-15
Withdrawn
6-7
Canceled
8, 10, 16, 19
Pending
1-7, 9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20
Presented for Examination
1-7, 9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawing Objections
Applicant argues that the strap receiver is shown outside the body in FIG 7. FIG 7 does not show the strap receiver 152; however, para. 0041 discloses 152 can include a lower opening 162, and 162 is shown in FIG 7. Therefore, Examiner is persuaded that the drawings support the subject matter of claims 1 and 15 and the drawing objection is withdrawn.
Specification Objections, 112(b) Rejections
Overcome by the amendments and withdrawn by Examiner.
102 Rejections, 103 Rejections
The amendments to claims 1 and 15 overcome the previous 102 rejection in view of Jacobsen. However, the amendments have necessitated a new interpretation of Jacobsen that is presented in the rejections below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected with traverse Species 1 shown in figures 1-9 in the reply filed on 08 April 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11, 15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobsen (US 8020219 B2).
As to claim 1, Jacobsen discloses a helmet (helmet 200) comprising:
a body defining a front end, a rear end opposite the front end, a first lateral end and a second lateral end opposite the first lateral end (helmet body 210; see FIG 2A), the body further defining one or more vents extending therethrough (FIG 2A shows one or more vents);
a structure at least partially embedded in the body and encircling at least one vent of the one or more vents (support structure 220 comprising roll cage 300, col 3 line 15-60 discloses 300 is an example of a support structure used in helmet 200; FIG 2B shows 220 is embedded; in order for the helmet to have vents as shown in FIG 2A, the openings of the helmet body 210 necessarily align with the openings of the roll cage 300, such that the structure encircles the vent); and
a first strap hanger and a second strap hanger coupled to the structure (see annotated FIG 3B below, coupled to 300 via 324 as disclosed in col 4 line 44-50), wherein each of the first strap hanger and the second strap hanger comprises:
a first clip (one of clips 324),
a second clip (another of clips 324),
a strap receiver accessible outside the body configured to receive a strap therethrough (see annotated FIG 2A below, capable of receiving and intended to receive a strap 326, as shown in FIG 2A), and
a first webbing that extends between the first clip and the strap receiver and a second webbing that extends between the second clip and the strap receiver (322 of which there are two as shown in FIGS 3C-3D) in order for the strap receiver to be spaced from the first clip, the second clip, and the structure (the strap receiver shown in FIG 2A is spaced from 324 and 300 by the strap 326 and other components of the strap hanger).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
730
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Jacobsen discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the structure is a cage (Jacobsen describes 300 as a “cage”).
As to claim 9, Jacobsen discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the first clip and the second lip are configured to snap onto the structure via a press-fit engagement (capable of snapping via press-fit, see FIGS 3C-3D).
As to claim 11, Jacobsen discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the first clip, the second clip, the strap receiver, the first webbing and the second webbing are integrally formed (all of the component parts are fastened together; the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding).
As to claim 15, Jacobsen discloses a helmet (helmet 200) comprising:
a body defining one or more vents extending therethrough (FIG 2A shows one or more vents);
a structure at least partially embedded in the body and encircling at least one vent of the one or more vents (support structure 220 comprising roll cage 300, col 3 line 15-60 discloses 300 is an example of a support structure used in helmet 200; FIG 2B shows 220 is embedded; in order for the helmet to have vents as shown in FIG 2A, the openings of the helmet body 210 necessarily align with the openings of the roll cage 300, such that the cage encircles the vent); and
a strap hanger coupled to the cage (see annotated FIG 3B below), wherein the strap hanger comprises:
a clip (clips 324),
a strap receiver accessible outside the body (see annotated FIG 2A below) and configured to receive a strap therethrough (capable of receiving a strap), and
webbing that extends between the clip and the strap receiver (strap 326 in FIG 2A) in order for the strap receiver to be spaced from the clip and the cage, the webbing further including two wings that extend outward from the strap receiver and longitudinally along the body between a front end and a rear end thereof (FIG 2A shows webbing/ strap 326 splits into two wings between the strap receiver and the helmet body which is upward/ outward from the strap receiver, and the wings have a width that extends longitudinally along the body between a front and rear).
PNG
media_image3.png
648
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
730
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 17, Jacobsen discloses the helmet of claim 15, wherein the clip snaps onto the cage via a press-fit engagement (capable of snapping via press-fit, see FIGS 3C-3D).
As to claim 18, Jacobsen discloses the helmet of claim 15, wherein the clip includes two clips that each snap onto the cage (FIGS 3C-3D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11, 14-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma (US 5119516 A) in view of Jacobsen (US 8020219 B2).
As to claim 1, Broersma discloses a helmet (bicycle helmet 10) comprising: a body defining a front end, a rear end opposite the front end, a first lateral end and a second lateral end opposite the first lateral end (body 11), the body further defining one or more vents extending therethrough (openings described in col 3 line 20-45 and shown in the FIGS); a structure at least partially embedded in the body and encircling at least one vent of the one or more vents (100-103 in FIG 17); and a first strap hanger and a second strap hanger coupled to the structure (at Lugs 120 and 121 on the band 100 in FIG 17).
Broersma does not disclose each of the first strap hanger and the second strap hanger comprises: a first clip, a second clip, a strap receiver accessible outside the body configured to receive a strap therethrough, and a first webbing that extends between the first clip and the strap receiver and a second webbing that extends between the second clip and the strap receiver in order for the strap receiver to be spaced to separate the strap receiver from the first clip, the second clip, and the structure.
Broersma discloses an aperture 135 that attaches the strap 29a’, 29b’ to the cage, but does not expressly disclose how the strap is attached to the aperture.
Jacobsen discloses a similar first and second strap hanger (see annotated FIG 3B below) comprising:
a first clip (one of clips 324),
a second clip (another of clips 324),
a strap receiver accessible outside the body configured to receive a strap therethrough (see annotated FIG 2A below, capable of receiving and intended to receive a strap 326, as shown in FIG 2A), and
a first webbing that extends between the first clip and the strap receiver and a second webbing that extends between the second clip and the strap receiver (322 of which there are two as shown in FIGS 3C-3D) in order for the strap receiver to be spaced from the first clip, the second clip, and the structure (the strap receiver shown in FIG 2A is spaced from 324 and 300 by the strap 326 and other components of the strap hanger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to attach Broersma’s strap to Broersma’s aperture using the Jacobsen structure that attaches Jacobsen’s strap to Jacobsen’s aperture, for the purpose of providing a known structure for attaching a strap to a cage.
PNG
media_image1.png
648
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
730
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the structure is a cage (FIG 17).
As to claim 9, Broersma as modified discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the first and second clips are configured to snap onto the structure via a press-fit engagement (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above, where the Jacobsen clip is capable of snapping onto the structure via a press-fit engagement).
As to claim 11, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the first clip, the second clip, the strap receiver, the first webbing and the second webbing are integrally formed (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above, all of the component parts are fastened together; the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding).
As to claim 14, Broersma does not disclose the helmet of claim 1, wherein the first strap hanger and the second strap hanger are made of plastic.
Broersma discloses another embodiment (FIG 26) that has plastic strap hangers (256; col 7 line 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide strap hangers made of plastic, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide strap hangers made of plastic for the purpose of providing a material of the desired weight and durability.
As to claim 15, Broersma discloses a helmet (bicycle helmet 10) comprising: a body (body 11) defining one or more vents extending therethrough (openings described in col 3 line 20-45 and shown in the FIGS); a cage at least partially embedded in the body and encircling at least one vent of the one or more vents (100-103 in FIG 17); and a strap hanger coupled to the cage (at Lugs 120 and 121 on the band 100 in FIG 17).
Broersma does not disclose the strap hanger comprises: a clip, a strap receiver accessible outside the body and configured to receive a strap therethrough, and webbing that extends between the clip and the strap receiver in order for the strap receiver to be spaced to separate the strap receiver from the clip and the cage, the webbing further including two wings that extend outward from the strap receiver and longitudinally along the body between a front end and a rear end thereof.
Broersma discloses an aperture 135 that attaches the strap 29a’, 29b’ to the cage, but does not expressly disclose how the strap is attached to the aperture.
Jacobsen discloses a similar strap hanger coupled to the cage (see annotated FIG 3B below), wherein the strap hanger comprises:
a clip (clips 324),
a strap receiver accessible outside the body (see annotated FIG 2A below) and configured to receive a strap therethrough (capable of receiving a strap), and
webbing that extends between the clip and the strap receiver (strap 326 in FIG 2A) in order for the strap receiver to be spaced from the clip and the cage, the webbing further including two wings that extend outward from the strap receiver and longitudinally along the body between a front end and a rear end thereof (FIG 2A shows webbing/ strap 326 splits into two wings between the strap receiver and the helmet body which is upward/ outward from the strap receiver, and the wings have a width that extends longitudinally along the body between a front and rear).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to attach Broersma’s strap to Broersma’s aperture using the Jacobsen structure that attaches Jacobsen’s strap to Jacobsen’s aperture, for the purpose of providing a known structure for attaching a strap to a cage.
PNG
media_image3.png
648
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
730
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 17, Broersma as modified discloses the helmet of claim 15, wherein the clip snaps onto the cage via a press-fit engagement (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 15 above, see Jacobsen FIGS 3A-3D).
As to claim 18, Broersma as modified discloses the helmet of claim 15, wherein the clip includes two clips that each snap onto the cage (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 15 above, see Jacobsen FIGS 3A-3D).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma (US 5119516 A) in view of Jacobsen (US 8020219 B2) as applied to claim 2 or 15 above, and further in view of Gentes (US 5477563 A).
As to claim 3, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 2, wherein the cage comprises: a transverse beam that extends between the first lateral end and the second lateral end (101), but does not disclose multiple longitudinal beams that extend between the rear end and the front end; and the transverse beam being coupled to one or more of the multiple longitudinal beams, wherein the one or more vents are situated between different pairs of adjacent longitudinal beams of the multiple longitudinal beams.
Gentes teaches a similar helmet cage (FIG 2) including wherein the cage comprises: multiple longitudinal beams that extend between the rear end and the front end (FIG 2 shows two longitudinal beams); and a transverse beam that extends between the first lateral end and the second lateral end (one of the two transverse beams shown in FIGS 2-3), the transverse beam being coupled to one or more of the multiple longitudinal beams (FIGS 2-3), wherein the one or more vents are situated between different pairs of adjacent longitudinal beams of the multiple longitudinal beams (FIG 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cage of Broersma with multiple longitudinal beams as taught by Gentes, and further to couple the transverse beam to one of the longitudinal beams and provide the vents between the beams, for the purpose of reinforcing the helmet to increase its ability to maintain integrity upon impact (Gentes), and to allow for ventilation.
As to claim 4, Broersma as modified discloses the helmet of claim 3, wherein the body fully encapsulates the multiple longitudinal beams of the cage (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 3 above, where Gentes teaches fully encapsulated longitudinal beams) but does not disclose the body partially encapsulates the transverse beam.
However, Broersma does disclose another embodiment in FIG 20 where the transverse beam 243 is partially encapsulated by the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the body partially encapsulating the transverse beam for the purpose of aesthetics.
As to claim 5, Broersma as modified discloses the helmet of claim 4, wherein the transverse beam extends through at least one of the one or more vents (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 4 above, see Broersma FIG 21).
As to claim 20, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 15, wherein the cage defines a front end, a rear end opposite the front end, a first lateral end and a second lateral end opposite the first lateral end (FIG 17), and comprises: a transverse beam that extends between the first lateral end and the second lateral end (101), but does not disclose multiple longitudinal beams that extend between the rear end and the front end; and the transverse beam being coupled to one or more of the multiple longitudinal beams, wherein the one or more vents are situated between different pairs of adjacent longitudinal beams of the multiple longitudinal beams.
Gentes teaches a similar helmet cage (FIG 2) including wherein the cage comprises: multiple longitudinal beams that extend between the rear end and the front end (FIG 2 shows two longitudinal beams); and a transverse beam that extends between the first lateral end and the second lateral end (one of the two transverse beams shown in FIGS 2-3), the transverse beam being coupled to one or more of the multiple longitudinal beams (FIGS 2-3), wherein the one or more vents are situated between different pairs of adjacent longitudinal beams of the multiple longitudinal beams (FIG 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cage of Broersma with multiple longitudinal beams as taught by Gentes, and further to couple the transverse beam to one of the longitudinal beams and provide the vents between the beams, for the purpose of reinforcing the helmet to increase its ability to maintain integrity upon impact (Gentes), and to allow for ventilation.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma (US 5119516 A) in view of Jacobsen (US 8020219 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fava (US 20180352909 A1).
As to claim 12, Broersma does not disclose the helmet of claim 1, wherein the first strap hanger includes a first front strap hanger located near the front end along the first lateral end and a first rear strap hanger located near the rear end along the first lateral end, and the second strap hanger includes a second front strap hanger located near the front end along the second lateral end and a second rear strap hanger located near the rear end along the second lateral end.
Broersma does disclose first and second front strap hangers (FIG 17), but only a single rear strap hanger.
Fava teaches a similar helmet (title) including a first front strap hanger located near the front end along the first lateral end (FIGS 1-2), a first rear strap hanger located near the rear end along the first lateral end (FIGS 1-2), a second front strap hanger located near the front end along the second lateral end (FIGS 1-2) and a second rear strap hanger located near the rear end along the second lateral end (FIGS 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace Broersma’s single rear strap hanger with two rear strap hangers for the purpose of providing a known configuration for attaching straps to a helmet.
As to claim 13, Broersma as modified discloses the helmet of claim 12, wherein the first front strap hanger and the first rear strap hanger are identical (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 12 above, where Broersma’s three identical strap hangers are replaced with four identical strap hangers).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US 8020219 B2).
As to claim 14, Jacobsen does not disclose the helmet of claim 1, wherein the first strap hanger and the second strap hanger are made of plastic.
Plastic is a known material for helmet components.
Jacobsen is silent as to the material of the first and second strap hangers, but does disclose other strap hanger embodiments comprising plastic components (col 5 line 35-40 discloses, “For example, particular embodiments of the present invention may employ a strap anchor comprising a relatively rigid piece of plastic or other suitable material that is coupled to housing 306 after formation of the helmet body and extends beyond the inner surface of the helmet body.”).
Therefore, plastic is within the scope of the Jacobsen strap hangers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide plastic first and second strap hangers, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide plastic first and second strap hangers, in order to provide a material having the desired weight, rigidity, and durability.
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights