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 5/12/2026, claim 1 is amended, claims 8-9 are canceled, and claims 17-18 are new. Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13-18 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant first argues that Grinneback and Pomering do not teach the claimed air gap. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejections relied upon secondary reference Larson to modify Grinneback and Pomering to meet the claimed air gap limitation. Applicant’s argument has not addressed the Larson reference or the modifications of Grinneback and Pomering as presented by the Examiner. Examiner therefore maintains that Grinneback as modified by Larson and Pomering as modified by Larson teach the air gap as claimed.
Further regarding claim 1 and in particular regarding the limitations previously found in claims 8 and 9 which have now been added to claim 1, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to switch the connector of Pomering to the alternative connector as taught by Pomering in figure 20 because “the form of the inner part 5A of the two-part connector is incompatible with being mounted within a head mount as recited by amended claim 1”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pomering teaches multiple various embodiments for “connecting members”, which are referred to using the reference number “5” throughout the disclosure. Pomering also explicitly states “the attachment device 13 can be fixed to the energy absorbing layer 3 and/or the outer shell 2 by means of fixing members 5, such as the four fixing members 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d in FIG. 4” (paragraph 65). Therefore, it is readily understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that the various embodiments of connectors (5) described throughout the specification of Pomering would be compatible with and capable of use for attaching the attachment device to the energy absorbing layer and/or outer shell. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). (See MPEP 2145(I)). In the instant case, Pomering does not include any disclosure that would suggest that the connectors shown in figure 20 and described using the same reference number (5) as the connectors which connect the head mount to layer(s) of the helmet would be incapable of being used to connect the head mount to the energy absorbing layer and/or outer shell. The use of the same reference number (5) would readily be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as disclosing variations on the same structural feature, so it follows that these variations can be used for the same purpose (in this case, connecting the head mount to layer(s) of the helmet). Applicant’s arguments regarding how the straps of the head mount are “by nature thin [and] not capable of supporting the deformable part 5A of the connector of FIG. 20 of Pomering” (Remarks, page 7) are therefore merely attorney argument and speculation not supported by sufficient evidence on the record. Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to switch the generic connectors described first in Pomering (paragraph 65) for one of the alternative embodiments of connectors later described in Pomering (and shown in figure 20) for the reasons set forth in the rejection.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from claim 1; however, claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art, as described in the arguments above and rejections below. The dependent claims remain rejected.
Applicant’s arguments regarding new claims 17 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims introduce new limitations that were not previously considered or searched, and in light of those new limitations, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
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 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 17, and 18 (and claims 3, 5, and 7 at least for depending from a rejected base claim) 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 2, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”. It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer back to the previously introduced “a layer of low friction material attached to a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount” (now added to claim 1) or if this is defining an additional layer of low friction material that is separate and in addition to the layer already defined in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to the same “layer of low friction material” as now introduced in claim 1, and as described in the 35 USC 112(d) rejection of this claim below, since the claim is broader than the limitation in claim 1, if the limitation from claim 1 (“wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”) is met, then the limitation in claim 2 (“wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”) will also be understood to be met.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the head mount facing the at least one protective layer”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear whether the “a layer of low friction material” is supposed to refer to the same “layer of low friction material” as introduced in claim 1, or if this is an additional, separate layer to the layer introduced in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as an additional layer, but even if this interpretation is correct, Examiner respectfully requests that the claim be amended to clarify that the two layers are different and separate from each other.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a lubricating material on, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear whether this limitation is further limiting the “low friction layer” as introduced in claim 1 or if the recited “lubricating material” is intended to be in addition to the “low friction layer”. The specification as originally filed does not appear to describe a combination of a low friction material and additionally a separate lubricating material on the same surface, but it does appear to use the terms “low friction material” and “lubricating material” interchangeably at times (“In one example the low friction material or lubricating material may be a polysiloxane-containing material” Instant specification, page 13), so for the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as redefining the “low friction material” as specifically a “lubricating material”.
Regarding claim 10, the claim currently depends from claim 8; however, claim 8 has been canceled. The claim has been interpreted as depending from claim 1.
Further regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”. It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer back to the previously introduced “a layer of low friction material attached to a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount” (now added to claim 1) or if this is defining an additional layer of low friction material that is separate and in addition to the layer already defined in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to the same “layer of low friction material” as now introduced in claim 1, since the limitation in claim 10 is broader than the limitation in claim 1, if the limitation from claim 1 (“wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”) is met, then the limitation in claim 10 (“wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”) will also be understood to be met.
Regarding claim 11, the claim currently depends from claim 8; however, claim 8 has been canceled. The claim has been interpreted as depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “a first layer of low friction material is provided on a surface of the head mount facing the at least one protective layer, a second layer of low friction material is provided on a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”. This limitation is unclear because a “layer of low friction material” is already introduced in claim 1, and it is unclear whether the recited “a first layer of low friction material” and “a second layer of low friction material” are supposed to be in addition to the previously introduced “layer of low friction material” from claim 1 (for a total of three layers), or if one (likely the “second layer”) of the two layers recited in this claim is supposed to be referring back to the previously introduced “layer of low friction material”. For the purposes of examination, the “second layer of low friction material” in this claim has been interpreted as the “layer of low friction material” as previously introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”. It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer back to the previously introduced “a layer of low friction material attached to a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount” (now added to claim 1) or if this is defining an additional layer of low friction material that is separate and in addition to the layer already defined in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to the same “layer of low friction material” as now introduced in claim 1, since the limitation in claim 18 is broader than the limitation in claim 1, if the limitation from claim 1 (“wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”) is met, then the limitation in claim 18 (“wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount”) will also be understood to be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 (and claims 3 and 5 at least for depending from a rejected base claim) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, all of the limitations of claim 2 except for “or integrated with” have now been added into claim 1 by the most recent amendment, therefore claim 2 now fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, as it appears to actually broaden the scope of claim 1 by adding a new alternative option.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grinneback (US 2018/0168268) in view of Larson (US 3025525) and Pomering (US 2019/0328074).
Regarding claim 1, Grinneback discloses: A helmet, comprising: at least one protective layer (rigid shell 2, energy absorbing layer 3); a head mount (attachment device 13) comprising a plurality of straps that are configured to extend across the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet (“the attachment device 13 is shown as comprising a headband portion with further strap portions extending from the front, back, left and right sides” paragraph 47; see figure 5 showing the attachment device 13 mounted on the head of a wearer), wherein the head mount is suspended within a cavity formed by the at least one protective layer wherein in normal use, an air gap is provided such that the air gap separates the head mount and the at least one protective layer in the crown region of the head (see figures 4 and 5 showing the air gap which traverses the crown of the head of the wearer, especially in figure 5); under an impact to the helmet below a threshold force, the head mount is configured to deform to absorb some of the energy of the impact, reducing the size of the air gap (“the attachment device 13 could be made of an elastic or semi-elastic polymer material” paragraph 46; it is understood that an elastic material is capable of deforming at least elastically in response to an impact force, and in doing so, this would reduce the size of the air gap); under an impact above the threshold force, the one or more protective layers contacts the head mount (“the fixing members 5 can absorb the rotational forces by deforming elastically or semi-elastically. In other arrangements, the deformation may be plastic, even resulting in the severing of one or more of the fixing members 5” paragraph 58; it is understood that if the fixing members are severed, they would no longer keep the head mount spaced from the protective layer, therefore they would come into contact if the force is sufficient); and the helmet further comprises a sliding interface (sliding facilitator 4) provided between the head mount and the at least one protective layer, configured such that the at least one protective layer is able to slide relative to the head mount as the at least one protective layer contacts the head mount under an impact to the helmet above the threshold force (“the sliding facilitator 4 is adapted to slide against the energy absorbing layer or against the attachment device 13 that is provided for attaching the helmet to a wearer’s head” paragraph 49; “the sliding facilitator 4 is provided to assist sliding of the energy absorbing layer 3 in relation to an attachment device 13” paragraph 50), the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (“the sliding facilitator may be provided on or integrated with the innermost side of the energy absorbing layer 3, facing the attachment device 13” paragraph 51; “the sliding facilitator may be applied to […] the material forming a layer in the helmet before that material has been fully manufactured into the helmet layer” paragraph 74), the head mount is connected to the at least one protective layer by connectors (fixing members 5b, 5c, 5d; “the attachment device 13 can be fixed to the energy absorbing layer 3 and/or the outer shell by means of fixing members 5, such as the four fixing members 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d in FIG. 4” paragraph 55).
Grinneback teaches “the attachment device 13 can be fixed to the energy absorbing layer 3 and/or the outer shell by means of fixing members 5, such as the four fixing members 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d in FIG. 4” (paragraph 55), in which the use of “such as” indicates that the precise number and configuration of fixing members that is illustrated is not essential, and further teaches “the particular configuration of the attachment device 13 can vary according to the configuration of the helmet” (paragraph 47); however, Grinneback does not explicitly disclose: an air gap is provided that is configured to extend over the entire area of the plurality of straps that is located in the crown region of the head of the wearer.
However, Larson teaches a suspension system for a helmet wherein an air gap (see figure 2) is provided that is configured to extend over the entire area of the plurality of straps that is located in the crown region of the head of the wearer (“a liner which contains novel attaching means which is adjustable to compensate for differences in head size, while at the same time maintaining the liner spaced from the helmet” column 1, lines 49-52; “the vertical position of the helmet 12 relative to the wearer’s head can be readily adjusted in like manner by means of the apertures 42 and the studs 43 on the cradle member 16” column 4, lines 7-10).
Larson teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets and suspension systems for 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 plurality of straps of Grinneback adjustable by replacing the top straps with adjustable straps that are disconnected and spaced apart from the top of the helmet, as taught by Larson, in order to “[permit] an accurate and comfortable positioning of the helmet 12 relative to the top of the wearer’s head. Thus, it can be adjusted so that the helmet will not be so low as to obstruct the wearer’s vision, nor so high as not to afford adequate protection for the sides of the head” (Larson, column 3, lines 15-19). This will allow the suspension system to be “easily and quickly adjusted […] vertically so as to fit heads of various shapes and sizes” (Larson, column 4, lines 31-33).
Grinneback as modified does not explicitly disclose: the layer of low friction material is also connected to the at least one protective layer by the connectors.
However, Pomering teaches a helmet with a connector in which the connector is described in more detail in figure 20, paragraphs 107-109. In particular, with this configuration, Pomering teaches that “the intermediate layer 4 may be fixed in position relative to the outer shell 2 by being clamped between the first part 5A and the outer shell 2. Sliding occurs at an interface between the intermediate layer 4 and the inner shell 3” (paragraph 109).
Pomering 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 provide the sliding interface as a separate layer and replace the fixing members of Grinneback with the two part connector of Pomering, as shown in figure 20 and described in paragraphs 107-109 of Pomering, as this would be the simple substitution of one known method of attachment for another that would yield only the predictable result of attaching the sliding interface/low friction layer to the protective layer. Further, this connector is detachable (see paragraph 107 of Pomering) which would make it easier to separate the parts for cleaning or replacement when necessary. Examiner notes that as modified, the first part 5A would be positioned in the attachment device 13, and the second part 5B would extend through the energy absorbing layer 3/outer shell 2, and the sliding interface is attached to the energy absorbing layer 3 by the connector as the connector clamps the two layers together, as described in paragraph 109 of Pomering.
Regarding claim 2 as best understood by Examiner, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (Grinneback, “the sliding facilitator may be provided on or integrated with the innermost side of the energy absorbing layer 3, facing the attachment device 13” paragraph 51; “the sliding facilitator may be applied to (or formed on) the material forming a layer in the helmet before that material has been fully manufactured into the helmet layer” paragraph 74; Examiner notes that the application or forming of the sliding facilitator on the base material constitutes creating a layer of low friction material on the surface of that base material).
Regarding claim 4 as best understood by Examiner, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the head mount facing the at least one protective layer (Grinneback, “the sliding facilitator 4 may be provided on or integrated with the outer surface of the attachment device 13 for the same purpose of providing slidability between the energy absorbing layer 3 and the attachment device 13” paragraph 52; “the sliding facilitator 4 is provided radially inwards of the energy absorbing layer 3. The sliding facilitator can also be provided radially outward of the attachment device 13” paragraph 53; “the sliding facilitator may be applied to (or formed on) the material forming a layer in the helmet before that material has been fully manufactured into the helmet layer” paragraph 74; Examiner notes that the application or forming of the sliding facilitator on the base material constitutes creating a layer of low friction material on the surface of that base material).
Regarding claim 6 as best understood by Examiner, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a lubricating material on, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (Grinneback, “the sliding facilitator may be provided on or integrated with the innermost side of the energy absorbing layer 3, facing the attachment device 13” paragraph 51; “the sliding facilitator 4 may comprise: (i) an organic polymer, a polysiloxane and a surfactant; (ii) an organic polymer and a copolymer based on a polysiloxane and an organic polymer; or (iii) a non-elastomeric cross-liked polymer obtained or obtainable by subjecting a polysiloxane and an organic polymer to a cross-linking reaction” paragraphs 60-63; Examiner notes that these materials are lubricating materials).
Regarding claim 7 as best understood by Examiner, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 6, wherein the lubricating material is one of a polysiloxane-containing material, a mixture of an olefin polymer and a lubricant, and an ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polymer (Grinneback, “the sliding facilitator 4 may comprise: (i) an organic polymer, a polysiloxane and a surfactant; (ii) an organic polymer and a copolymer based on a polysiloxane and an organic polymer; or (iii) a non-elastomeric cross-liked polymer obtained or obtainable by subjecting a polysiloxane and an organic polymer to a cross-linking reaction” paragraphs 60-63).
Regarding claim 10 as best understood by Examiner, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 8 [*claim 1 as best understood], wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (Grinneback, “the sliding facilitator may be provided on or integrated with the innermost side of the energy absorbing layer 3, facing the attachment device 13” paragraph 51; “the sliding facilitator may be applied to (or formed on) the material forming a layer in the helmet before that material has been fully manufactured into the helmet layer” paragraph 74); and wherein the connectors are connected to the at least one protective layer via the low friction layer (as modified by Pomering, since the sliding facilitator is a material having a low coefficient of friction that is provided on (attached to) the innermost surface of the protective layer, it follows that the connectors (which connect the head mount to the protective layer) must connect to the protective layer via (through or by means of) the low friction layer because the low friction layer is between the connectors and the at least one protective layer).
Regarding claim 11 as best understood by Examiner, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 8 [*claim 1 as best understood], wherein the connectors are deformable to allow the head mount to rotate relative to the at least one protective layer (as modified to have the connectors as taught by Pomering, “the first part 5A may be deformable” paragraph 107).
Regarding claim 13, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the head mount comprises a head ring that is configured to engage at least the forehead of a wearer of the helmet (Grinneback, “the attachment device 13 is shown as comprising a headband portion with further strap portions extending from the front, back, left and right sides” paragraph 47; see figure 5 showing the headband portion engaging the forehead of a wearer; Examiner notes that the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above has not changed the headband portion, only the upper straps that go over the top of the user’s head)
Regarding claim 14, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the at least one protective layer includes an energy absorbing layer (Grinneback, energy absorbing layer 3).
Regarding claim 15, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the at least one protective layer includes a hard outer shell (Grinneback, rigid shell 2).
Regarding claim 16, Grinneback as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 above, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein, in the absence of an impact on the helmet, the separation between the outer shell and the head mount at a location corresponding to the top of the head of a wearer provided by the air gap is at least 10mm.
However, determining the appropriate size for an air gap at the top of the head of the wearer is well within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of safety helmets to determine the optimal sized air gap to properly protect the wearer to meet safety standards through routine experimentation, as discovering the optimal or workable range of the size of the air gap involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, Applicant discloses and claims that the size of the air gap can range from at least 10mm to at least 40mm, and given that such a wide range is found acceptable by Applicant, it is clear that the specific size of the air gap lacks criticality. 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 air gap at least 10mm in order to provide optimized protection for the user’s head.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grinneback/Larson/Pomering as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nowak (US 2016/0201005).
Regarding claim 18 as best understood by Examiner, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the head mount facing the at least one protective layer (Grinneback, “the sliding facilitator 4 may be provided on or integrated with the outer surface of the attachment device 13 for the same purpose of providing slidability between the energy absorbing layer 3 and the attachment device 13” paragraph 52; “the sliding facilitator may be applied to (or formed on) the material forming a layer in the helmet before that material has been fully manufactured into the helmet layer” paragraph 74; Examiner notes that the application or forming of the sliding facilitator on the base material constitutes creating a layer of low friction material on the surface of that base material).
Grinneback contemplates the use of patches (“sliding facilitators 4 may be provided as patches of low friction material” paragraph 54) but does not explicitly disclose: the layer of low friction material is provided in discrete patches evenly spaced along a length of each strap of the head mount.
However, Nowak teaches a low friction coating comprising low friction inclusions provided in discrete patches that are evenly spaced apart (“low-friction and low-adhesion surfaces are created by a heterogeneous microstructure comprising a low-surface-energy polymer that is interspersed with hygroscopic domains (lubricating inclusions)” paragraph 82; “note that the functions of the matrix and inclusions may be reversed, such that the matrix provides hygroscopic properties while the inclusions provide low surface energy” paragraph 150; see figure 1 showing even spacing between inclusions 120).
Nowak teaches art pertinent to the problem faced by the Applicant regarding reducing friction on a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the low friction coating in discrete patches, as contemplated by Grinneback and explicitly taught by Nowak, in order to ensure that “debris will not remain on the surface” (Nowak, paragraph 82) while also providing a more interesting aesthetic design via the dot pattern of the coating.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Pomering (US 2019/0328074) in view of Larson (US 3025525).
Regarding claim 1, Pomering discloses: A helmet, comprising: at least one protective at least one protective layer (rigid shell 2, energy absorbing layer 3); a head mount (attachment device 13) comprising a plurality of straps that are configured to extend across the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet (“the attachment device 13 is shown as comprising a headband portion with further strap portions extending from the front, back, left and right sides” paragraph 56; see figure 5 showing the attachment device 13 mounted on the head of a wearer), wherein the head mount is suspended within a cavity formed by the at least one protective layer wherein in normal use, an air gap is provided such that the air gap separates the head mount and the at least one protective layer in the crown region of the head (see figures 4 and 5 showing the air gap which traverses the crown of the head of the wearer, especially in figure 5); under an impact to the helmet below a threshold force, the head mount is configured to deform to absorb some of the energy of the impact, reducing the size of the air gap (“the attachment device 13 could be made of an elastic or semi-elastic polymer material” paragraph 46; it is understood that an elastic material is capable of deforming at least elastically in response to an impact force, and in doing so, this would reduce the size of the air gap); under an impact above the threshold force, the one or more protective layers contacts the head mount (“the fixing members 5 can absorb the rotational forces by deforming elastically or semi-elastically. In other arrangements, the deformation may be plastic, even resulting in the severing of one or more of the fixing members 5” paragraph 68; it is understood that if the fixing members are severed, they would no longer keep the head mount spaced from the protective layer, therefore they would come into contact if the force is sufficient); and the helmet further comprises a sliding interface (sliding facilitator 4) provided between the head mount and the at least one protective layer, configured such that the at least one protective layer is able to slide relative to the head mount as the at least one protective layer contacts the head mount under an impact to the helmet above the threshold force (“the sliding facilitator 4 is adapted to slide against the energy absorbing layer or against the attachment device 13 that is provided for attaching the helmet to a wearer’s head” paragraph 58; “the sliding facilitator 4 is provided to assist sliding of the energy absorbing layer 3 in relation to an attachment device 13” paragraph 59), the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (“the sliding facilitator may be provided on or integrated with the innermost side of the energy absorbing layer 3, facing the attachment device 13” paragraph 61; “the sliding facilitator 4 may be a material having a low coefficient of friction” paragraph 59), the head mount is connected to the at least one protective layer by connectors (5b, 5c, 5d; see figure 4).
Pomering does not explicitly disclose: the low friction layer is also connected to the at least one protective layer by the connectors.
However, Pomering further teaches an alternate embodiment in which the connector is described in more detail in figure 20, paragraphs 107-109. In particular, with this configuration, Pomering teaches that “the intermediate layer 4 may be fixed in position relative to eh outer shell 2 by being clamped between the first part 5A and the outer shell 2. Sliding occurs at an interface between the intermediate layer 4 and the inner shell 3” (paragraph 109).
Pomering 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 provide the sliding interface as a separate layer and replace the fixing members 5b, 5c, 5d of Pomering with the two part connector of Pomering, as shown in figure 20 and described in paragraphs 107-109 of Pomering, as this would be the simple substitution of one known method of attachment for another that would yield only the predictable result of attaching the sliding interface/low friction layer to the protective layer. Further, this connector is detachable (see paragraph 107 of Pomering) which would make it easier to separate the parts for cleaning or replacement when necessary. Examiner notes that as modified, the first part 5A would be positioned in the attachment device 13, and the second part 5B would extend through the energy absorbing layer 3/outer shell 2, and the sliding interface is attached to the energy absorbing layer 3 by the connector as the connector clamps the two layers together, as described in paragraph 109 of Pomering.
Pomering teaches “the attachment device 13 can be fixed tot the energy absorbing layer 3 and/or the outer shell by means of fixing members 5, such as the four fixing members 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d in FIG. 4” (paragraph 65), in which the use of “such as” indicates that the precise number and configuration of fixing members that is illustrated is not essential, and further teaches “the particular configuration of the attachment device 13 can vary according to the configuration of the helmet” (paragraph 56); however, Pomering does not explicitly disclose: an air gap is provided that is configured to extend over the entire area of the plurality of straps that is located in the crown region of the head of the wearer.
However, Larson teaches a suspension system for a helmet wherein an air gap (see figure 2) is provided that is configured to extend over the entire area of the plurality of straps that is located in the crown region of the head of the wearer (“a liner which contains novel attaching means which is adjustable to compensate for differences in head size, while at the same time maintaining the liner spaced from the helmet” column 1, lines 49-52; “the vertical position of the helmet 12 relative to the wearer’s head can be readily adjusted in like manner by means of the apertures 42 and the studs 43 on the cradle member 16” column 4, lines 7-10).
Larson teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of helmets and suspension systems for 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 plurality of straps of Pomering adjustable by replacing the top straps with adjustable straps that are disconnected and spaced apart from the top of the helmet, as taught by Larson, in order to “[permit] an accurate and comfortable positioning of the helmet 12 relative to the top of the wearer’s head. Thus, it can be adjusted so that the helmet will not be so low as to obstruct the wearer’s vision, nor so high as not to afford adequate protection for the sides of the head” (Larson, column 3, lines 15-19). This will allow the suspension system to be “easily and quickly adjusted […] vertically so as to fit heads of various shapes and sizes” (Larson, column 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 2 as best understood by Examiner, Pomering as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (Pomering, “the sliding facilitator may be provided on or integrated with the innermost side of the energy absorbing layer 3, facing the attachment device 13” paragraph 61; “the sliding facilitator 4 may be a material having a low coefficient of friction” paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 3 as best understood by Examiner, Pomering as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 2, wherein the layer of low friction material is moulded to the surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (Pomering, “a layer of low friction plastics material such as PC is preferable for the intermediate layer 4. This may be moulded to the inside surface of the outer shell 2 (or more generally the inside surface of whichever layer it is directly radially inward of)” paragraph 47; Examiner notes that in this case, it is directly radially inward of the energy absorbing layer 3 as shown in figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 5 as best understood by Examiner, Pomering as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 2 wherein the low friction material is formed from a waxy polymer and/ or a fabric, wherein the waxy polymer comprises polycarbonate (PC),thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), Nylon, brushed Nylon, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyvinylchloride (PVC), perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), polyethylene (PE) or Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) (Pomering, “the low friction material may be a waxy polymer, such as PTFE, ABS, PRV, PC, Nylon, PFA, EEP, PE and UHMWPE, or a powder material which could be infused with a lubricant. The low friction material could be a fabric material” paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 10 as best understood by Examiner, Pomering discloses: The helmet of claim 8 [*claim 1 as best understood], wherein the sliding interface is provided, at least partially, by a layer of low friction material attached to, or integrated with, a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (Pomering, “the sliding facilitator may be provided on or integrated with the innermost side of the energy absorbing layer 3, facing the attachment device 13” paragraph 61; “the sliding facilitator 4 may be a material having a low coefficient of friction” paragraph 59); and wherein the connectors are connected to the at least one protective layer via the low friction layer (since the sliding facilitator is a material having a low coefficient of friction that is provided on (attached to) the innermost surface of the protective layer, it follows that the connectors (which connect the head mount to the protective layer) must connect to the protective layer via (through or by means of) the low friction layer because the low friction layer is between the connectors and the at least one protective layer).
Regarding claim 11 as best understood by Examiner, Pomering as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 8 [*claim 1 as best understood], wherein the connectors are deformable to allow the head mount to rotate relative to the at least one protective layer (as modified to have the connectors shown in figure 20 of Pomering, “the first part 5A may be deformable” paragraph 107).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Pomering/Larson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lowe (US 2016/0113346).
Regarding claim 17 as best understood by Examiner, Pomering as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein a first layer of low friction material is provided on a surface of the head mount facing the at least one protective layer (Pomering, “the sliding facilitator 4 is provided radially inward of the energy absorbing layer 3. The sliding facilitator can also be provided radially outwards of the attachment device 13” paragraph 62), a second layer of low friction material is provided on a surface of the at least one protective layer facing the head mount (Pomering, “the sliding facilitator 4 is provided radially inward of the energy absorbing layer 3. The sliding facilitator can also be provided radially outwards of the attachment device 13” paragraph 62)
Pomering as modified teaches many options for the low friction material (see paragraph 64) but does not explicitly disclose: the first and second layers of low friction material are formed from different respective materials.
However, Lowe teaches a low friction interface comprising a first layer of low friction material (outer surface 41 having a low friction material) provided on a surface of a head mount (40; “a comfort liner 40 comprises an outer surface 41 having a low friction material” paragraph 31) and a second layer of low friction material (low friction layer 30) provided on a surface of a helmet layer (8; “low friction layer 30 may be coupled to the inner surface 9 of a protective shell 8” paragraph 29) wherein the first and second layers of low friction material are formed from different respective materials (“a low friction material such as brushed nylon on an outer surface 41 of the comfort liner 40” paragraph 31; “low friction layer 30 may be formed of plastic, such […] polycarbonate” paragraph 29; polycarbonate is different than brushed nylon).
Lowe 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 low friction material on the head mount of Pomering specifically brushed nylon and the low friction material on the at least one protective layer of Pomering specifically polycarbonate, as taught by Lowe, in order to “[promote or increase] slipping, rotation, and relative movement between the [head mount] and the [at least one protective layer] […] such that a wearer’s head remains in fixed contact relative to the [head mount] while slipping, rotating, and moving against the [at least one protective layer]” (Lowe, paragraph 31). Examiner further notes that both nylon and polycarbonate were materials recited by Pomering as suitable low friction materials (see paragraph 64 of Pomering), and so it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select nylon and polycarbonate in view of Lowe since it has further been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07.
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
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights