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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be 150 words or less. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 plastic plate between the two layers of fabric (claim15) 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.
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.
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 10, 12 and 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.
Claim 10 recites “wherein at least one connector is provided […]” it is unclear if the “at least one connector” is the same “at least one connector” that is recited in claim 8. Or if the “at least one connector” is a different element. For purposes of examination, the claim as been construed to mean a different element than the connector of claim 8. D. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the" in respect to a connector. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A connector has not been positively recited. Claim 8 recites at least one connector. For clarity, when referring back to the claimed element the language should remain the same. For instance, “the at least one connector”. It’s unclear as currently recited, if “the connector” is an additional element or the “at least one connector” positively recited. For purposes of examination, the connector has been construed to mean “the at least one connector” recited in claim 8.
Claim 20 recites “formed from plural separate section”. This appears to be an error of syntax and is unclear. The claim has been construed to mean formed from a plurality of separate sections.
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(s) 1-8, 10, 13, 18-20, 22, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al (US 5,113,534) in view of Rogers et al. (US 11,666,112). The device of Lane et al teaches,
With respect to claim 1, A helmet comprising:
an outer shell (12);
a head mount (18), configured to be mounted on the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet (Figure 3); wherein the head mount is suspended within the outer shell (12) such that, in use, an air gap is provided between the head mount and the outer shell (column 3, lines 33-36); the head mount comprises a plurality of straps (22, 24), that are configured to extend across the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet (Figure 3), and a head ring (20) that at least partially surrounds the head of a wearer of the helmet, extending around the craniocaudal axis (Figure 3); and the helmet further comprises:
and a head engagement device support (26) that is configured to inhibit the movement of the head engagement device through gaps between the straps (Figure 4) and/or head ring of the head mount into the air gap between the head mount and the outer shell (Figure 4). The language “is configured to inhibit the movement of the head engagement device through gaps between the straps” is functional. The head engagement device support (26) is positioned through gaps between the straps and therefore would be configured to inhibit movement in the same manner as recited by applicant. See MPEP 2114. The device of Lane et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a head engagement device.
The device of Rogers et al. teaches
a head engagement device (12) that is provided on a surface of the head mount (16), that is configured to face the head of a wearer of the helmet (Figure 3) such that the head engagement device (12) can move relative to the head mount (16). The language configured to face the head of a wearer of the helmet such that the head engagement can move relative to the head mount, is a functional recitation. The device of Rogers et al. teaches the head engagement device attached to the head engagement support device and would be capable of being moveable relative to the head mount (16) which can move through apertures independent of the head engagement device, therefore meeting the functional language recited. See MPEP 2114.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to utilize the head engagement device of Rogers et al. in combination with mount and head engagement support of Lane et al. in order to provide improved protection and comfort for the user (column 6, lines 45-47).
With respect to claim 2, wherein the head engagement device support (26) comprises a crown section (Figure 1) connected to at least one of the straps (by apertures 42, 44, 46, 48) at a location corresponding to the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet (Figure 1) and at least one limb section (62 that extends from the crown section to the head ring and is connected to the head ring (20).
With respect to claim 3, wherein the head engagement device support (26) comprises a limb sections (62), extending from the crown section to a location on the head ring corresponding to a respective side of the head of a wearer of the helmet. The device of Lane et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking multiple limb sections. Mere duplication of parts has long been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan and therefore obvious unless the duplication produces a new of unexpected result, see MPEP 2144.04. The addition of multiple limb sections would not provide a new or unexpected result, would further add improved adjustment in more areas of the support. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would be been motivated to provide multiple limb sections, in order to further improve the positioning and adjustability of the support device.
With respect to claim 4, wherein the head engagement device support (26) comprises at least one limb section (62) extending from the crown section to a location on the head ring corresponding to the front of the head of a wearer of the helmet (figure 1). The device of Lane et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking multiple limb sections. Mere duplication of parts has long been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan and therefore obvious unless the duplication produces a new of unexpected result, see MPEP 2144.04. The addition of multiple limb sections would not provide a new or unexpected result, would further add improved adjustment in more areas of the support. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would be been motivated to provide multiple limb sections, anywhere on the support but specifically extending from the crown to a location on the head ring corresponding to a rear of a wearer of the helmet, in order to further improve the positioning and adjustability of the support device in both a forward and back location to improve fit.
With respect to claim 5 wherein the crown section of the head engagement device support (26) comprises at least one slot (42, 44, 46, 48); and the head engagement device support (26) is connected to the head mount (20) by at least one strap (22, 24) of the head mount passing through at least one slot in the crown section (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 6, the crown section of the head engagement device (26) support is connected to the head mount (20) by an extension of the crown section (62) of the head engagement device support that extending around at least one of the straps (22, 24) and connecting to itself (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 7,wherein at least one limb section (62) of the head engagement device support is connected to the head ring (20) by an end of the limb section extending around a section of the head ring (Figure 3) and connecting to itself.
With respect to claim 8, comprising at least one connector (42) configured to connect the head engagement device (22, 24) to the head engagement device support (26) while permitting the head engagement device to move relative to the head engagement device support (the connections 42, 44, 46, 28, allow movement between the elements); wherein, optionally, at least one connector is provided on the crown section of the head engagement device support. It is noted that any language that follows the phrase optionally is not required by the claim.
With respect to claim 10, wherein at least one connector (70,72) is provided on a limb section 962) of the head engagement device support (Figure 4); wherein, optionally, at least one connector (70, 72) on a limb section (62) of the head engagement device support is provided at a location at which the limb section is connected to the head ring (Figure 4). It is noted that the claim language following the phrase “optionally” is not a positive recitation and not required by the claim.
With respect to claim 13, wherein the head engagement device support (26) comprises at least one outer surface formed from a fabric or felt. Fabric is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “resembling cloth”. The elongated flat material of Lane et al. resembles cloth and meets the claim language as currently recited when interpreted in the broadest reasonable sense.
With respect to claim 18, the head engagement device (12) in combination is connected to the head mount (Column 13, line 3).
With respect to claim 19, wherein the head mount comprises a plurality of straps (22,24) that extend between an opposing pair of connection points (at crown) on the outer shell (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 20, the head engagement device (12) is provided as a single component (12); or the head engagement device (12) is made up of multiple single components to from plural separate sections.
With respect to claim 22, wherein the head engagement device (12) comprises a crown region that is configured to be located between the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet and the head mount (Figure 3), and a frontal region (12) that is configured to be located adjacent the head ring (Figure 8); wherein, optionally, the head engagement device further comprises an intermediate region (12) that connects the crown region to the frontal region (Figure 8). It is not noted that the language following the phrase “optionally” is not a positive recitation and not required by the claim.
With respect to claim 24, wherein the head engagement device (12) comprises a plate of material (Figure 3), optionally shaped to conform to the head of a wearer of the helmet (Figure 3). It is not noted that the language following the phrase “optionally” is not a positive recitation and not required by the claim.
With respect to claim 25 the absence of an impact on the helmet, the separation between the outer shell (12) and the head mount (18, 22, 24) at a location corresponding to the top of the head of a wearer (Figure 1) provided by the air gap (column 3, line 33-36) is at least 10mm, optionally at least 15mm, optionally at least 20mm, optionally at least 30mm, optionally at least 40mm. It is not noted that the language following the phrase “optionally” is not a positive recitation and not required by the claim. The device of Lane et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to the numerical value of the space between the shell and the head mount. It has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Lane et al. and is therefore not patentably distinct. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a space size that is greater than 10mm, as recited in the claim, in order to provide adequate comfort and for adequate impact protection (column 1, lines 20-25).
Claim(s) 14 - 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. and Rogers et al., as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Mitchell (US 4,627,114). The modified device of Lane et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention including the head engagement support device formed from fabric padding but is lacking the head engagement device support is formed from a foam and/or plastic material between to fabric layers.
With respect to claim 14, teaches a fabric padding which is formed from a material comprising a layer of foam (43,45) laminated between two layers of fabric or felt (35, 41); and wherein the foam layer is stiffer (column 5, line 21) than the layers of fabric or felt. It is noted that the step “laminated” is directed to a product by process limitation. The prior art is capable of being made by the claimed process and therefore meets the claim. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the layered material taught by Mitchell in order to provide a comfortable padding element that protects the head from impact (abstract).
With respect to claim 15, the material is formed from two layers of fabric or felt (35, 41) with a plastic plate (39; PVA) inserted between them that has a shape corresponding to at least a part of the head engagement device support (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the layered material taught by Mitchell in order to provide a comfortable padding element that protects the head from impact (abstract).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. and Rogers et al., as applied to claim 1, in further view of Piper et al. (US 2004/0250340). The modified device of Lane et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a low friction interface.
With respect to claim 16, wherein a low friction interface (para 0008) is provided on the exterior surface of head engagement device (212, 213) and in combination would be positioned at least one of the head mount and the head engagement device support (since it is one the exterior of the lining, it would be in contact with the head engagement device support or mount).; wherein, optionally, the low friction interface is provided by a low coefficient of friction between the surfaces of the head engagement device and the head mount and/or the head engagement device support. It is noted that language following the phrase “optionally” is not positively recited and not required by the claim. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to utilize the low friction material of Piper et al. for the head engagement device in order to provide improved sliding of the outer layer with respect to the inner portion of the helmet to provide improved oblique impact protection for the user (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Blake (US 5,517,691) is the closest prior art. The device of Blake shows a flexible connection between and interior padding and a head mount. The instant invention specifically requires a helmet having an outer shell, heat mount spaced from the outer shell; comprising a plurality of straps extending across a crown and a head ring, a head engagement support device and a head engagement device on a surface of the head engagement support device; a connector permitting movement of the head engagement device relative to head engagement support device the being a sheet of deformable material that connects the head engagement device at the inner region of the sheet of elastically deformable material and is connected to the head engagement device support at a peripheral region of the elastically deformable sheet. It is the examiner’s opinion that the art of record considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a connection comprising an elastically deformable sheet, attached to the head engagement device at the inner region and to the head engagement device support at a peripheral region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights