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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 2, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, 17, and 18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon (US Patent No. 10,869,520) in view of Hefling (US Patent No. 5,575,017) and Larson et al. (herein Larson)(US PG Pub 2023/0232915), further in view of Peart (US PG Pub 2007/0209098) and Toth (US PG Pub 2004/0226077).
Regarding claim 1, Leon discloses a water activity helmet (14, see Figs. 1-5 and column 4, line 62 – column 10, line 52, and note below) for an individual, the helmet comprising:
an outer shell (24) having an inner surface (22; see at least Fig. 4; column 1, lines 16-20; column 5, lines 42-65; and column 9, line 40 – column 10, line 37; Leon discloses wherein helmet 14 may be a single shell helmet, such that inner shell 24 effectively forms an outer shell of the helmet); and
a padding system (16, 18, 20) coupled to the inner surface, the padding system comprising pad clusters (see Figs. 2 and 6, pads 16, 18 form at least an inner cluster of pads 18 and an outer cluster of pads 16) that are respectively positioned at different locations on the inner surface (see Figs. 2 and 6), each of the pad clusters comprising discrete pads (16, 18) that are individually coupled to the inner surface in a defined arrangement (see Figs. 1-5; column 5, line 42 – column 6, line 35; and column 9, line 40 – column 10, line 37).
Regarding the limitation “water activity helmet,” Leon discloses a helmet for protecting the wearer’s head during athletic activities (see at least column 1, lines 5-53) and is therefore capable of being used as a water activity helmet. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114 (II).
Leon substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to further disclose wherein the discrete pads include a first discrete pad and a second discrete pad each comprising a first vinyl nitrile material having a first stiffness and a second vinyl nitril material having a second stiffness.
However, Hefling teaches a helmet (1) comprising an outer shell (2) having an inner surface (along interior 16); and a plurality of discrete pads (19, 23, 27, 28) individually coupled to the inner surface in a defined arrangement (see at least Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 5-50), wherein each discrete pad comprises a first foam material having a first stiffness and a second foam material having a second stiffness (see column 2, lines 25-50; each of crown pad 19, front pad 23, and ear flap pads 27, 28 are dual-density foam pads having a first high density foam layer and a second low density foam layer), so as to enhance wearer comfort while still providing sufficient protection in the event of an impact (see column 2, lines 25-50).
Furthermore, Larson teaches a dual-density pad (500) configured to be connected to the interior of a helmet (see paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0038-0040), wherein the pad comprises a first vinyl nitrile material (510) having a first stiffness and a second vinyl nitril material (520) having a second stiffness (see paragraphs 0027 and 0038-0040), to provide a softer inner material for a more conforming deformation against the wearer’s body and a more rigid outer material for enhanced shock absorption (see paragraph 0040).
Therefore, based on Hefling’s and Larson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified at least two of Leon’s discrete pads to each comprise a first vinyl nitrile material having a first stiffness and a second vinyl nitrile material having a second stiffness, so as to enhance wearer comfort by providing a softer inner material for a more conforming deformation against the wearer’s head, while still providing sufficient protection in the event of an impact by providing a more rigid outer material for enhanced shock absorption.
Furthermore, regarding the use of a vinyl nitrile material, it has 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 (see at least paragraph 0027 of Larson, cited above, which teaches wherein vinyl nitrile foam is one of many well-known materials in the art for providing impact absorption). See MPEP 2144.07.
Leon fails to further disclose wherein the first discrete pad is a solid cylindrical pad and the second discrete pad is a hollow cylindrical pad. Instead, Leon depicts a plurality of solid, rectangular prism-shaped pads (see at least Figs. 1-5).
However, the Examiner notes that cylindrical helmet pads are a well-known shape in the art. For example, Peart teaches a helmet (10) for an individual, the helmet comprising: a padding system (system including plurality of pads 80) coupled to an inner surface of the helmet, the padding system comprising discrete solid pads (80) that are individually coupled to the inner surface in a defined arrangement (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0018-0025 and 0034), wherein each of the discrete solid pads can comprise a plurality of known shapes such as cylinders, cones, pyramids, wedges, or any other suitable shape (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0019-0021).
Furthermore, Toth teaches wherein it is known in the art to provide helmet pads in a solid configuration, a hollow configuration, or a combination of solid and hollow pads (see solid pads 24a, 24b and hollow pad 24c in at least Fig. 3 and paragraph 0030). The Examiner notes that combining solid pads and hollow pads would reduce the weight of the helmet while still providing impact protection.
Therefore, based on Peart’s and Toth’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Leon’s first and second discrete pads to comprise a solid cylindrical pad and a hollow cylindrical pad, respectively, as a cylindrical shape is well-known in the art, and including a combination of solid and hollow pads would reduce the weight of the helmet while still providing impact protection.
The Examiner notes that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The Examiner further notes that the claimed cylindrical shape does not appear to be critical feature of the invention, since paragraph 0029 of the instant specification discloses wherein the pads may include other shapes, such as cubic or rectangular cubic shapes.
Regarding claim 3, the modified helmet of Leon (i.e., Leon in view of Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth) is further disclosed wherein each of the discrete pads (16, 18 of Leon as modified above) comprises a discrete solid cylindrical pad or a discrete hollow cylindrical pad (see Figs. 1-2 of Peart, Fig. 3 and paragraph 0030 of Toth, and rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified helmet of Leon (i.e., Leon in view of Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth) is further disclosed wherein each of the discrete pads (16, 18 of Leon as modified above) comprises a vinyl nitrile material (see paragraph 0027 of Larson and rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, the modified helmet of Leon (i.e., Leon in view of Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth) is further disclosed wherein one or more first discrete pads (16 of Leon) of the discrete pads comprise at least one of a first material or a first stiffness that is different than at least one of a second material or a second stiffness, respectively, of one or more second discrete pads (18 of Leon) of the discrete pads (see column 2, line 55 – column 3, line 15 and column 5, lines 42-65 of Leon).
Regarding claim 7, the modified helmet of Leon (i.e., Leon in view of Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth) is further disclosed wherein one or more first pad clusters (16 of Leon) of the pad clusters have at least one of a first pad quantity, a first pad arrangement, or a first pad spacing that is different than at least one of a second pad quantity, a second pad arrangement, or a second pad spacing, respectively, of one or more second pad clusters (18 of Leon) of the pad clusters (see at least Figs. 2, 4, and 5 of Leon).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Szalkowski et al. (herein Szalkowski)(US PG Pub 2013/0086733).
Regarding claim 8, Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth together teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but fail to further teach at least one fitting pad coupled to at least one of the discrete pads.
However, Szalkowski teaches a helmet (100) comprising an inner padding system (102) comprising a plurality of pad clusters (302, 304, 306, see at least Fig. 3B and paragraph 0026), and at least one fitting pad coupled to at least one pad of the pad clusters (see Figs. 1A-1C and paragraph 0026), so as to provide comfort to the user and prohibit movement of the helmet on the user's head, and to further enhance impact protection of the helmet by deforming upon impact and bringing the wearer’s head to rest in controlled manner (see paragraph 0026).
Therefore, based on Szalkowski’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Leon’s helmet to further include at least one fitting pad coupled to at least one of the discrete pads, as doing so would to provide comfort to the user and prohibit movement of the helmet on the user's head, and further enhance impact protection of the helmet by deforming upon impact and bringing the wearer’s head to rest in controlled manner.
Claims 9, 10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez (US PG Pub 2018/0264346) in view of Leon, further in view of Hefling and Larson, further in view of Peart and Toth.
Regarding claim 9, Jimenez discloses a water activity helmet (10, see Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 0006-0009, and 0020-0024, and note below) for an individual, the helmet comprising:
an outer shell (as seen in at least Figs. 1-6) having an outer surface (surface facing away from wearer’s head and an inner surface (surface facing towards wearer’s head); and
an outer padding system (12) coupled to the outer surface (see Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 0020-0024).
Regarding the limitation “water activity helmet,” Jimenez discloses a helmet for protecting the wearer’s head during athletic activities (see at least paragraphs 0006-0009) and is therefore capable of being used as a water activity helmet. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114 (II).
Jimenez substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to further disclose an inner padding system coupled to the inner surface, the inner padding system comprising pad clusters that are respectively positioned at different locations on the inner surface, each of the pad clusters comprising discrete pads that are individually coupled to the inner surface in a defined arrangement.
However, Leon teaches a helmet (14, see Figs. 1-5 and column 4, line 62 – column 10, line 52) for an individual, the helmet comprising: an outer shell (24) having an inner surface (22; see at least Fig. 4; column 1, lines 16-20; column 5, lines 42-65; and column 9, line 40 – column 10, line 37; Leon discloses wherein helmet 14 may be a single shell helmet, such that inner shell 24 effectively forms an outer shell of the helmet); and an inner padding system (16, 18, 20) coupled to the inner surface, the inner padding system comprising pad clusters (see Figs. 2 and 6, pads 16, 18 form at least an inner cluster of pads 18 and an outer cluster of pads 16) that are respectively positioned at different locations on the inner surface (see Figs. 2 and 6), each of the pad clusters comprising discrete pads (16, 18) that are individually coupled to the inner surface in a defined arrangement (see Figs. 1-5; column 5, line 42 – column 6, line 35; and column 9, line 40 – column 10, line 37); so as to reduce the force of an impact to the wearer’s head, and to enhance the fit and comfort of the helmet (see column 1, lines 5-52 and column 5, line 42 – column 6, line 36).
Therefore, based on Leon’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jimenez’ helmet to further include an inner padding system coupled to the inner surface, the inner padding system comprising pad clusters that are respectively positioned at different locations on the inner surface, each of the pad clusters comprising discrete pads that are individually coupled to the inner surface in a defined arrangement; as doing so would reduce the force of an impact to the wearer’s head, and would also enhance the fit and comfort of the helmet.
Jimenez and Leon together substantially teach the invention as claimed above but fail to further teach wherein the discrete pads include a first discrete pad and a second discrete pad each comprising a first vinyl nitrile material having a first stiffness and a second vinyl nitril material having a second stiffness
However, Hefling teaches a helmet (1) comprising an outer shell (2) having an inner surface (along interior 16); and a plurality of discrete pads (19, 23, 27, 28) individually coupled to the inner surface in a defined arrangement (see at least Fig. 2 and column 2, lines 5-50), wherein each discrete pad comprises a first foam material having a first stiffness and a second foam material having a second stiffness (see column 2, lines 25-50; each of crown pad 19, front pad 23, and ear flap pads 27, 28 are dual-density foam pads having a first high density foam layer and a second low density foam layer, so as to enhance wearer comfort while still providing sufficient protection in the event of an impact (see column 2, lines 25-50).
Furthermore, Larson teaches a dual-density pad (500) configured to be connected to the interior of a helmet (see paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0038-0040), wherein the pad comprises a first vinyl nitrile material (510) having a first stiffness and a second vinyl nitril material (520) having a second stiffness (see paragraphs 0027 and 0038-0040), to provide a softer inner material for a more conforming deformation against the wearer’s body and a more rigid outer material for enhanced shock absorption (see paragraph 0040).
Therefore, based on Hefling’s and Larson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified one of Leon’s discrete pads to comprise a first vinyl nitrile material having a first stiffness and a second vinyl nitrile material having a second stiffness, so as to enhance wearer comfort by providing a softer inner material for a more conforming deformation against the wearer’s head, while still providing sufficient protection in the event of an impact by providing a more rigid outer material for enhanced shock absorption.
Furthermore, regarding the use of a vinyl nitrile material, it has 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 (see at least paragraph 0027 of Larson, cited above, which teaches wherein vinyl nitrile foam is one of many well-known materials in the art for providing impact absorption). See MPEP 2144.07.
Leon fails to further teach wherein the first discrete pad is a solid cylindrical pad and the second discrete pad is a hollow cylindrical pad. Instead, Leon depicts a plurality of solid, rectangular prism-shaped pads (see at least Figs. 1-5).
However, the Examiner notes that cylindrical helmet pads are a well-known shape in the art. For example, Peart teaches a helmet (10) for an individual, the helmet comprising: a padding system (system including plurality of pads 80) coupled to an inner surface of the helmet, the padding system comprising discrete solid pads (80) that are individually coupled to the inner surface in a defined arrangement (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0018-0025 and 0034), wherein each of the discrete solid pads can comprise a plurality of known shapes such as cylinders, cones, pyramids, wedges, or any other suitable shape (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0019-0021).
Furthermore, Toth teaches wherein it is known in the art to provide helmet pads in a solid configuration, a hollow configuration, or a combination of solid and hollow pads (see solid pads 24a, 24b and hollow pad 24c in at least Fig. 3 and paragraph 0030). The Examiner notes that combining solid pads and hollow pads would reduce the weight of the helmet while still providing impact protection.
Therefore, based on Peart’s and Toth’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Leon’s first and second discrete pads to comprise a solid cylindrical pad and a hollow cylindrical pad, respectively, as a cylindrical shape is well-known in the art, and including a combination of solid and hollow pads would reduce the weight of the helmet while still providing impact protection.
The Examiner notes that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The Examiner further notes that the claimed cylindrical shape does not appear to be critical feature of the invention, since paragraph 0029 of the instant specification discloses wherein the pads may include other shapes, such as cubic or rectangular cubic shapes.
Regarding claim 10, Jimenez, Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth together teach the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Jiminez further discloses wherein the outer padding system (12) comprises a foam or pliable foam material (see paragraph 0021) but fails to specify a vinyl nitrile material.
However, Larson further teaches wherein materials such as EVA foam, vinyl nitrile, foam, and sponge rubber are well-known in the art to be suitable for forming an impact-absorbing pad for use in helmets (see paragraphs 0025-0027).
Therefore, based on Larson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specifically formed Jimenez’ foam pads from a vinyl nitrile foam, as such a material is well-known in the art to be suitable for forming an impact-absorbing pad for use in helmets.
Furthermore, it has 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Jimenez, Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth together teach the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Jiminez further discloses wherein the outer padding system (12) comprises a foam or pliable foam material (see paragraph 0021) but fails to specify wherein the outer padding system comprises one pad comprising a first vinyl nitrile material having a first defined stiffness and a second vinyl nitrile material having a second defined stiffness.
However, Larson further teaches a dual-density pad (500) configured to be used within a helmet (see paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0038-0040), wherein the pad comprises a first vinyl nitrile material (510) having a first defined stiffness and a second vinyl nitril material (520) having a second defined stiffness (see paragraphs 0027 and 0038-0040), to provide a softer, more flexible wearer interface and a more rigid outer layer for increased shock absorption and/or reduced deformation from impacting objects (see paragraphs 0002-0003, 0038-0040, and 0046).
Therefore, based on Larson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified one of Jimenez’ pads to comprise a first vinyl nitrile material having a first stiffness and a second vinyl nitrile material having a second stiffness, so as to provide a softer, more flexible wearer interface and a more rigid outer layer for increased shock absorption and/or reduced deformation from impacting objects.
Furthermore, regarding the use of a vinyl nitrile material, it has 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 (see at least paragraph 0027 of Larson, cited above, which teaches wherein vinyl nitrile foam is one of many well-known materials in the art for providing impact absorption). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, the modified helmet of Jimenez (i.e., Jimenez in view of Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth) is further disclosed wherein each of the discrete pads (16, 18 of Leon as modified above) comprises a discrete solid cylindrical pad or a discrete hollow cylindrical pad (see Figs. 1-2 of Peart, Fig. 3 and paragraph 0030 of Toth, and rejection of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 14, the modified helmet of Jimenez (i.e., Jimenez in view of Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth) is further disclosed wherein each of the discrete pads (16, 18 of Leon as modified above) comprises a vinyl nitrile material having a defined stiffness (see paragraph 0027 of Larson and rejection of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 15, the modified helmet of Jimenez (i.e., Jimenez in view of Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth) is further disclosed wherein one or more first discrete pads (16 of Leon) of the discrete pads comprise at least one of a first material or a first stiffness that is different than at least one of a second material or a second stiffness, respectively, of one or more second discrete pads (18 of Leon) of the discrete pads (see column 2, line 55 – column 3, line 15 and column 5, lines 42-65 of Leon).
Regarding claim 17, the modified helmet of Jimenez (i.e., Jimenez in view of Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth) is further disclosed wherein one or more first pad clusters (16 of Leon) of the pad clusters have at least one of a first pad quantity, a first pad arrangement, or a first pad spacing that is different than at least one of a second pad quantity, a second pad arrangement, or a second pad spacing, respectively, of one or more second pad clusters (18 of Leon) of the pad clusters (see at least Figs. 2, 4, and 5 of Leon).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez, Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Wiart et al. (herein Wiart)(US PG Pub 2018/0271202).
Regarding claim 11, Jimenez, Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth together teach the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Jiminez further discloses wherein the outer padding system (12) comprises a foam or pliable foam material (see paragraph 0021) but fails to specify wherein the outer padding system comprises one or more first pads comprising a first vinyl nitrile material having a first defined stiffness and one or more second pads comprising a second vinyl nitrile material having a second defined stiffness.
However, Wiart teaches a helmet (10) comprising a padding system (16) comprising a plurality of pads formed of any suitable type of foam, such as vinyl nitryl foam (see paragraphs 0066-0081 and Table 2), and including one or more first pads comprising a first vinyl nitrile material having a first stiffness and one or more second pads comprising a second vinyl nitrile material having a second stiffness (see Tables 1-2), so as to provide a multi-density inner padding system that optimizes impact protection across different locations of the helmet (see paragraphs 0002-0004, 0034-0037 and 0066-0071).
Therefore, based on Wiart’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jimenez’s outer padding system to comprise one or more first pads comprising a first vinyl nitrile material having a first defined stiffness and one or more second pads comprising a second vinyl nitrile material having a second defined stiffness, as doing so would provide a multi-density padding system that optimizes impact protection across different locations of the helmet.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez, Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Szalkowski.
Regarding claim 18, Jimenez, Leon, Hefling, Larson, Peart, and Toth together teach the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, but fail to further teach at least one fitting pad coupled to at least one of the discrete pads.
However, Szalkowski teaches a helmet (100) comprising an inner padding system (102) comprising a plurality of pad clusters (302, 304, 306, see at least Fig. 3B and paragraph 0026), and at least one fitting pad coupled to at least one pad of the pad clusters (see Figs. 1A-1C and paragraph 0026), so as to provide comfort to the user and prohibit movement of the helmet on the user's head, and to further enhance impact protection of the helmet by deforming upon impact and bringing the wearer’s head to rest in controlled manner (see paragraph 0026).
Therefore, based on Szalkowski’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the helmet together taught by Jimenez and Leon to further include at least one fitting pad coupled to at least one of the discrete pads, as doing so would to provide comfort to the user and prohibit movement of the helmet on the user's head, and further enhance impact protection of the helmet by deforming upon impact and bringing the wearer’s head to rest in controlled manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights