DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response of 2/17/2026 is received. Claims 1, 2, 16, 21, and 22 are amended, claim 4 is cancelled, and claims 1-3 and 5-22 are pending, with claims 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 withdrawn as non-elected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 15 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: insert “the” after “connected to” in the line starting with “wherein the base” to read “wherein the base is connected to the shell”,
Claim 12: delete “hoop” and insert “hook”,
Claim 15: insert “at least one” in line 1 to recite “wherein the at least one clamping device”,
Claim 22: insert “at least one” after “and the” in the next to last line of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein the stretchable body is sized to pass through one open-cell of the at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure and when the stretchable elongated body is positioned in said one open-cell of the at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure….such that the clamping device clamps only the at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure.” Claim 1 also is currently amended to recite the base is connected to the shell and/or the counter-base is connected to the head receiving system. Thus, the claim requires a connection between the at least one clamping device and one or both of the shell and head receiving system. Therefore, it appears that the stretchable elongated body should be set forth as passing through one open-cell of the at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure; rather than how the body is currently recited “when the …body is positioned in said one open-cell of the at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure”. As currently set forth, it’s unclear how the at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure moves with respect to the shell and/or the head receiving system if the stretchable elongated body does not pass through the open-cell of the at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halldin (U.S. 8,316,512) ivo Pfanner et al. ‘702 and Brandt et al. (Brandt, U.S. 10,660,389). Halldin discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Halldin teaches a helmet 3 comprising an outer layer 4 and at least one energy-absorbing structure 6 (disclosed as polyurethane foam or polystyrene) and at least one clamping device (combined 24,30,16,12,14) comprising a base 24 and a counter-base 30 connected to each other via a stretchable elongated body 16 to form a single piece, wherein the stretchable elongated body 16 is sized to pass through an opening 31 of the energy-absorbing structure 6 and is configured to reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled (see Fig.1B and P2), and wherein when the stretchable elongated body 16 is positioned in the channel of the energy-absorbing structure 6, the base 24 of the clamping device lies on an outer face of the outer layer and the counter-base 30 of the clamping device lies on an inner face of the energy-absorbing structure 6 (see Figs.1A,1B) and the clamping device clamps the energy absorbing structure 6 and outer layer 4 together. However, Halldin doesn’t teach the outer layer is a shell and the at least one energy absorbing structure comprises an array of energy-absorbing open-cells interconnected via their sidewalls configured to absorb energy by deforming during an impact to the shell and a head receiving system. Pfanner teaches a helmet 10 comprising a shell 12 with an energy absorbing structure 18 comprising an array of energy-absorbing open-cells 24 interconnected via their sidewalls configured to absorb energy by deforming during an impact to the shell 12 as the energy absorbing structure 18 forms a honeycomb-like structure capable of plastic deformation under impact (pars.6 and 16). Paragraph 31 teaches, “Namely, the impact absorption device 18 has a plurality of cavities 20 separated from each other by walls. In the described embodiment, the cavities 20 are formed as tubes 24 fixedly connected to each other.” It would have been obvious to provide the outer layer 4 as a shell as Pfanner teaches it’s known in the helmet art that a shell provides protection against head injuries and will transfer kinetic energy of an impact to the impact absorption device below the helmet shell. Brandt teaches a helmet 20 with a shell 22 and head receiving system 24 and an impact absorbing structure 26 positioned therebetween such that the head receiving system 24 fits comfortable on the head of a user. The head receiving system is disclosed as a soft inner layer that is flexible to conform to and comfortable fit on the head of the wearer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Halldin’s outer layer to form as a shell, as Pfanner teaches it’s known in the art to provide a helmet with a shell as an exterior layer such that the shell will absorb impact energy to protect the wearer’s head. It also would have been obvious to provide the energy absorbing structure that is an array of energy-absorbing open-cells interconnected via their sidewalls configured to absorb energy by deforming during an impact to the shell as an alternate energy absorbing structure expected to provide the same result of energy absorption while also allowing for ventilation through the cells of the structure. Finally, it would have been obvious to modify Halldin to provide the head receiving system, as Brandt teaches it’s known in the helmet art to provide an inner layer of a helmet with a head receiving system in the form of a soft layer that is flexible and conforms to the wearer’s head to improve the wearing comfort of the helmet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks of 6/1/2026 have been considered. Applicant submits that the proposed modification of Pfanner ivo Kele would defeat Pfanner’s stated objective of preventing shifting or slipping of the impact absorption device. The rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn upon consideration of Applicant’s remarks and the amended claim limitations. Please note that the rejection of claim 22 is revised in view of the amendments to the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
