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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 11/21/2025, claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claim 12 is canceled. Claims 1-11, 13-16 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/21/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1 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. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has introduced new limitations that have altered the scope of the claims, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from claim 1; however, as described in the rejections below, claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
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, 6-8, 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).
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).
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).
Regarding claim 2, 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, 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).
Regarding claim 6, 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, 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 8, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the head mount is connected to the at least one protective layer by connectors (Grinneback, fixing members 5a, 5b; “the attachment device 13 is fixed to the energy absorbing layer 4 by means of the fixing members 5a, 5b” paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 11, Grinneback as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 8, wherein the connectors are deformable to allow the head mount to rotate relative to the at least one protective layer (Grinneback, “the fixing members 5 can absorb the rotational forces by deforming elastically or semi-elastically” paragraph 58; see figure 5 showing the deformation as well as the rotation that occurs as a result of that deformation).
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) 1-3, 5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Pomering (US 2019/0328074) in view of Larson.
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).
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, 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, 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, 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 8, Pomering as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 1, wherein the head mount is connected to the at least one protective layer by connectors (as modified, Pomering’s fixing members 5b, 5c, 5d; see figure 4, noting that the top fixing member 5a would be removed in the modification in favor of the adjustment system of Larson).
Regarding claim 9, Pomering as modified discloses: The helmet of claim 8, 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 (“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); and wherein 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.
Regarding claim 10, Pomering discloses: The helmet of claim 8, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zbikowski (US 3116490) and Anderson (US 3156922) teach helmet suspension systems with an air gap between the helmet suspension and the top of the helmet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732