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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, received 06 March 2026, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a non-final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1, 9, 11, and 15
Withdrawn
6-7
Canceled
8, 10, 16, 19
Pending
1-7, 9, 11-15, 17-18, 20
Presented for Examination
1-5, 9, 11-15, 17-18, 20
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specification Objections and 112(b) Rejections
The language that was objected to/ rejected was “separates” in the recitation “webbing that… separates the strap receiver…” The claims are amended to recite “webbing that extends… to separate the strap receiver…” The recitation “separate,” like “separates” is not found in the originally filed disclosure and is indefinite for the same reason “separates” is indefinite. Applicant argues that the disclosure has support for the webbing connecting and the strap receiver being spaced from the clip. Examiner suggests canceling the “separate/ separates” recitations from the claims and use the “connect” and “spaced from” language found in the originally filed disclosure.
102 Rejections and 103 Rejections
The arguments are drawn to newly added recitations which are addressed 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the strap receiver accessible outside the body (claims 1 and 15; none of the figures show both the body 112 and the receiver 152 such that it can be determined the drawings support the receiver being accessible outside the body) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: webbing to “separate the strap receiver from the clip and the cage” in claims 1 and 15.
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 1-5, 9-15, and 17-20 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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rendered indefinite by the recitation “webbing… to separate the strap receiver from the clip and the cage,” because it is not clear what is meant by this and the disclosure is silent as to this feature. For example, it is not clear if this is an active action of the webbing (e.g. separating the way one would separate a pen from its cap) or if this is a passive descriptor of the relationship between the webbing, receiver, clip, and cage (e.g., the webbing is between the clip and receiver, or the webbing provides visual or spatial separation between the clip and receiver). Based upon FIG 2, Examiner believes the webbing serves to visually separate the receiver from the clip and cage.
Claims that depend from a rejected claim are also rejected.
All of the claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11, 14-15, 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 strap hanger coupled to the structure (combination of 324, 322 or the disclosed slot, and 306 shown in FIGS 3A-3D), wherein the strap hanger comprises:
a first clip, a second clip (clips 324, FIG 3B shows there is a first clip on the right side of 300 and a second clip on the left side of 300),
a strap receiver accessible outside the body (pin cradle 322 or a slot (not illustrated) as described in col 5 line 3-20; capable of being accessed outside the body, at least via the insertion tools described in col 5 line 20-30) configured to receive a strap therethrough (pin cradle 322 or a slot (not illustrated) as described in col 5 line 3-20 is capable of and intended to receive therethrough a strap which is the combination of strap 326 and pin 320), and
a first webbing that extends between the first clip and the strap receiver (strap anchor housing 306 extends between 324 and 322 or the unlabeled slot, as shown in FIGS 3A-3D; FIG 3B shows there is a first webbing on the right side of 300 and a second webbing on the left side of 300) and a second webbing that extends between the second clip and the strap receiver (strap anchor housing 306 extends between 324 and 322 or the unlabeled slot, as shown in FIGS 3A-3D; FIG 3B shows there is a first webbing on the right side of 300 and a second webbing on the left side of 300) in order to separate the strap receiver from the first clip, the second clip, and the structure (as best understood and to the degree shown in Applicant’s figures, the second webbing separates the strap receiver 322 or the unlabeled slot from the first and second clips 324 and at least portions of structure 300).
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 clip, the strap receiver, the first webbing and the second webbing are integrally formed (see FIGS 3A-3D, 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, Jacobsen discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the strap hanger is made of plastic (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.”).
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 (combination of 324, 322 or the disclosed slot, and 306 shown in FIGS 3A-3D), wherein the strap hanger comprises:
a clip (clips 324),
a strap receiver accessible outside the body (pin cradle 322 or a slot (not illustrated) as described in col 5 line 3-20; capable of being accessed outside the body, at least via the insertion tools described in col 5 line 20-30) and configured to receive a strap therethrough (pin cradle 322 or a slot (not illustrated) as described in col 5 line 3-20, which receives therethrough a strap which is the combination of strap 326 and pin 320), and
webbing that extends between the clip and the strap receiver (strap anchor housing 306 extends between 324 and 322 or the unlabeled slot, as shown in FIGS 3A-3D) in order to separate the strap receiver from the clip and the cage (as best understood and to the degree shown in Applicant’s figures, the webbing 306 separates the strap receiver 322 or the unlabeled slot from the clip 324 and at least portions of structure 300),
the webbing further including two wings that extend outward from the strap receiver (308 and 310 as shown in FIG 3B).
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 strap hanger coupled to the structure (at Lugs 120 and 121 on the band 100 in FIG 17).
Broersma does not disclose the 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[[to]] the strap receiver and a second webbing that extends between the second clip and the strap receiver in order to [[and]] separate[[s]] 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 strap hanger. FIGS3A-3D show a cage 300 having a strap hanger/ aperture 312 to which a strap 326 is attached, the attaching comprising a clip (clip 324, FIG 3B shows there is a first clip on the left of 300 and a second clip on the right of 300); a strap receiver accessible outside the body (capable of being accessed and intended to be accessed via insertion tools as disclosed in the Jacobsen specification) configured to receive a strap therethrough (310); and webbing that extends between the clip to the strap receiver (306, FIG 3B shows there is a first webbing on the left side of 300 and a second webbing on the right side of 300), the webbing separating at least portions of the strap receiver from at least portions of the clip and at least portions of the cage to the extent that there is webbing between at least portions of the receiver and at least portions of the clip, and webbing between at least portions of the receiver and portions of the cage.
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.
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 8, 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 8 above, where the clip is capable of snapping onto the structure via a press-fit engagement).
As to claim 11, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 8, wherein the clip, the strap receiver, the first and second webbings 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 14, Broersma does not disclose the helmet of claim 1, wherein the strap hanger is 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[[to]] the strap receiver in order to [[and]] separate[[s]] the strap receiver from the clip and the cage, the webbing further including two wings that extend outward from the strap receiver.
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. FIGS3A-3D show a cage 300 having a strap hanger/ aperture 312 to which a strap 326 is attached, the attaching comprising a clip (clip 324); a strap receiver accessible outside the body (capable of being accessed and intended to be accessed via insertion tools as disclosed in the Jacobsen specification) and configured to receive a strap therethrough (310); and webbing that extends between the clip and the strap receiver (306), the webbing separating at least portions of the strap receiver from at least portions of the clip and at least portions of the cage to the extent that there is webbing between at least portions of the receiver and at least portions of the clip, and webbing between at least portions of the receiver and portions of the cage, the webbing includes two wings that extend outward from the strap receiver (Jacobsen 322 in FIGS 3A-3D).
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.
As to claim 17, Broersma as modified discloses the helmet of claim 16, 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 16 above, see Jacobsen FIGS 3A-3D).
As to claim 18, Broersma as modified discloses the helmet of claim 16, 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 16 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 strap hanger includes a first front strap hanger located near the front end along the first lateral end, a second front strap hanger located near the front end along the second lateral end, a first rear strap hanger located near the rear end along the first 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 second front strap hanger located near the front end along the second lateral end (FIGS 1-2), a first rear strap hanger located near the rear end along the first 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights