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 8/22/2025, claim 29 is amended. Claim 34 remains withdrawn. Claims 21-33 and 35-41 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has not overcome the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented drawing objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 21, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Schimpf by Piper because Schimpf allegedly teaches away from any modification that would restrain the pivoting motion to one axis as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to the allegation of teaching away, Examiner notes that the section from paragraph 54 of Schimpf that Applicant cites states, “The shell-side insert 7 and the head-side insert 8 of the inner wearing unit are preferably connected to one another so that they can be displaced freely relative to one another in all directions” (emphasis added). MPEP states, “The disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. […] The court stated that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." Id.”. Paragraph 6 of Schimpf describes the invention overall as having “a shell-side insert and a head-side insert, which can be counter-rotated (preferably starting from application of a predetermined force) in at least one direction” (emphasis added), which supports that rotation in only one direction is sufficient. Therefore, just because displacement in all directions was disclosed as preferable in the particular embodiment described paragraph 54 and a lateral displacement was disclosed in reference to figure 20 (also cited by Applicant), does not mean that the reference teaches away from the modification proposed by the Examiner, especially when the rejection relied upon the embodiment that was shown in figures 12 and 13 (the third embodiment, see paragraphs 39-40 and 59), which were both cited in the rejection. That third embodiment in particular has a specific pivot 14 around which the helmet rotates in one direction (from front to back, see paragraph 59). Notably, that pivot 14 is not pictured in the first embodiment of figures 1-4, which is described in paragraph 54 with regards to the alleged free displacement in all directions. For those reasons, the rejection is being maintained.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from claim 21; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, claim 21 is not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 2, 4, 5, 7, 8A-8B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14A-14C, 15, 26, 27A-27B, 32, 34, 35, 36 include shading and very light, dotted gray lines that reduce legibility and make the drawings inadequate for reproduction. In particular, the use of shading in combination with dotted, light gray lines to delineate different features in the drawings instead of clear, solid black lines (such as the ones used as lead lines for the reference numbers) makes it difficult to discern many features. Examiner respectfully requests that the drawings be delineated by solid black lines, not different shaded regions and dotted gray lines. There is also very little contrast between some of the shaded areas because the grayscale colors of the different shaded areas have very low contrast with each other, such as with arrows/lines with low contrast from the surrounding shading in figures 2, 7, 8A-8B, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14A-14C, and 15, which makes the arrows/lines difficult to see. Examiner also notes that the use of shading is described in the MPEP as being used for differentiating surfaces in perspective, not for defining different components of the invention. Figures 6, 32, 34, 35, 36 also include solid black shading areas which are not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.84(l-m) which states:
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. However, the Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See 37 CFR 1.84(b). See also 37 CFR 1.81(c) and 37 CFR 1.83(c), and MPEP § 608.02. New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because figures 1, 17A, 17B, 18, 31, as currently submitted, appear to be photographs. Applicant is reminded that drawings in utility patent applications must be black and white line drawings (not black and white photographs). See MPEP 1.84. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 2 illustrates two separate figures or views of the invention that are labeled with only one figure number. See MPEP 602V(u)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84, which states “different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter.” The drawings should be amended so that each separate view of the invention is provided with its own figure label that is denote with a distinct number (or combination of a number and capital letter). For example, Figure 2A and Figure 2B.
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.
Claim 29 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 29, the claim recites the limitation “wherein one or both of the two pivot mechanisms are positioned forward of a center of gravity line and wherein one or both of the pivot mechanisms are positioned in positions associated with a maximal relative angular rotation range between the inner member and the outer shell after deployment of the deployment device is in a range of 10°-30°.” This wording of this limitation is unclear. The phrase “is in a range of 10°-30°” is confusing because it is not clear what in particular is supposed to be in the claimed range, and the phrase does not appear to logically follow after the previous statements in the claim (i.e., “wherein one or both of the pivot mechanisms are positioned in positions associated with a maximal relative angular rotation range between the inner member and the outer shell after deployment of the deployment device” is a complete thought on its own so therefore it is not clear what “is in a range of 10°-30°” is adding or referring to). Since the last phrase is unclear, it cannot be determined what the claimed position of the pivot mechanisms is or should be. Because it cannot be determined what structural limitations are actually being claimed, this claim has not been rejected using prior art.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-28, 30-31, 33, 35-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf (US 2012/0060251) in view of Piper (US 2004/0250340).
Regarding claim 21, Schimpf discloses: A helmet comprising: an outer shell (outer shell 1) defining a concavity; an inner member (head side insert 8), at least a portion of which is located within the concavity, the inner member pivotally coupled to the outer shell and permitted to move relative to the outer shell by rotation about a laterally oriented pivot axis (“the head-side inset and the shell-side insert, and thus the head of the wearer and the outer helmet shell, can be counter-rotated quickly and without impediment” paragraph 6); one or more pivot joints (pivots 14) which facilitate relative pivotal movement between the inner member and the outer shell about the laterally oriented pivot axis (see pivoting around the pivot 14 in figures 12 and 13); and a deployment device (connecting means 20) which: in the absence of sufficient external force, constrains rotational motion between the inner member and the outer shell about the pivot axis; and when the helmet receives an impact having sufficient force, deploys to permit relative angular rotation between the outer shell and the inner member about the pivot axis (“the connecting means 20 comprise predetermined breaking points 21, which rupture, for example, during a blow from the front” paragraph 59; see the pivoting that occurs after the rupture of the connecting means in figure 13).
Schimpf does not explicitly disclose that the pivot joints specifically constrain relative movement between the inner member and outer shell to movement about the laterally oriented pivot axis.
However, Piper teaches protective headwear with an outer layer (414) and an inner layer (413) that are coupled together by and are configured to rotate about pins on the lateral sides of the headwear (rivets 421; “such an embodiment permits the entire outer layer 414 to rotate 427 as a unit about the rivets 421, resulting in sliding 425 of the […] outer layer 415 over the […] inner layer 413” paragraph 121).
Piper teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of protective headwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add rivets, as taught by Piper, to connect the inner member and outer shell on each side of the helmet of Schimpf because rivets are a well-known pivot structure in the art, and further because “the amount of rotation can be controlled by controlling the tightness of the rivets” (Piper, paragraph 121), which would allow the user to adjust the amount of requisite force that would need to be applied before rotation would occur, even if the connecting means had already been broken, so the helmet could still continue to be used and worn. Examiner notes that the addition of the rivets would necessarily constrain the relative movement between the inner member and outer shell to movement about the pivot axis.
Regarding claim 22, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21 wherein the deployment device constrains the relative rotational motion between the inner member and the outer shell, in the absence of sufficient external force, by applying force that tends to prevent relative rotation between the inner member and the outer shell or between any components of the pivotal coupling between the inner member and the outer shell (Schimpf, “the connecting means 20 comprise predetermined breaking points 21, which rupture, for example, during a blow from the front” paragraph 59; see the pivoting that occurs after the rupture of the connecting means in figure 13; before the connecting means rupture, the inner member and outer shell do not rotate relative to each other).
Regarding claim 23, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21 wherein, in the absence of sufficient external force, the deployment device constrains rotational motion between the inner member and the outer shell about the pivot axis to a minimum relative rotation (Schimpf, “the connecting means 20 comprise predetermined breaking points 21, which rupture, for example, during a blow from the front” paragraph 59; see the pivoting that occurs after the rupture of the connecting means in figure 13; before the connecting means rupture, the inner member and outer shell do not rotate relative to each other).
Regarding claim 24, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 23, wherein when the helmet receives an impact having sufficient force, the deployment device deploys to permit a larger range of relative angular rotation between the outer shell and the inner member about the pivot axis (Schimpf, “the connecting means 20 comprise predetermined breaking points 21, which rupture, for example, during a blow from the front” paragraph 59; see the pivoting that occurs after the rupture of the connecting means in figure 13).
Regarding claim 25, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein the laterally oriented pivot axis is parallel to a lateral plane and orthogonal to a mid-sagittal plane of the helmet (Schimpf, see the pivot 14 on figures 12 and 13; the axis is laterally oriented and parallel to a lateral plane and orthogonal to a mid-sagittal plane).
Regarding claim 26, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 25, wherein the laterally oriented pivot axis passes a coupling zone bounded by three notional lines in the mid-sagittal plane of the helmet, the three lines being: a center of gravity line; a brow line running from a front portion to a back portion of the helmet and tangential to a lowermost point on a surface that defines a top edge of a face opening; and an anterior line parallel to the center of gravity line and intersecting the lowermost point of the top edge surface of the face opening (Schimpf, see annotated figure 12 below showing the coupling zone that is bounded by the three lines as claimed, and that the pivot axis is located in the zone).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 of Schimpf showing the lines and coupling zone as claimed
Regarding claim 27, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein the inner member and outer shell are coupled together by the one or more pivot joints (Piper, rivets 421).
Regarding claim 28, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein the one or more pivot joints comprise two pivot mechanisms located symmetrically on the helmet (as modified, there are two rivets, one on each side of the helmet at the location of pivots 14 of Schimpf).
Regarding claim 30, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 27, wherein the inner member and the outer shell are coupled together by engagement of a pin through a pair of aligned apertures in the inner member and the outer shell (Piper, rivets 421 are pins, see figure 4 of Piper showing how the pin goes through both the inner member and outer shell so there would necessarily need to be aligned apertures in both components for the pin to pass through, so as modified, the rivets would go through apertures in the inner member and outer shell of Schimpf).
Regarding claim 31, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, the deployment device comprising a shear pin, wherein the shear pin shears and breaks when the helmet receives the impact force greater than a configurable threshold (Schimpf, connecting means 20 can be considered a shear pin; “the connecting means 20 comprise predetermined breaking points 21, which rupture, for example, during a blow from the front” paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 33, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein the one or more pivot joints and the deployment device are separate from each other (Schimpf, see figure 12 and 13; the pivots 14 are separate from the connecting means 20).
Regarding claim 35, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, further comprising a cushioning layer (Schimpf, intermediate layer 10) positioned between the inner member and the outer shell (Schimpf, see figure 12), the cushioning layer configured to control rotational acceleration or deceleration of outer shell relative to inner member (Schimpf, “it is also conceivable for the intermediate layer to be a liquid or a gel. In this case, the viscosity of the liquid or the gel is adjusted so that it can be used to achieve various friction coefficients (shear values) and thus various accelerations. In this way, the angular acceleration progression can be adjusted” paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 36, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein the outer shell comprises one or more beveled regions (Schimpf, see annotated figure 12 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
355
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 12 showing a beveled region and apexes
Regarding claim 37, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein a mid-sagittal plane of the outer shell comprises one of more apexes (Schimpf, see annotated figure 12 provided with the rejection of claim 36 above).
Regarding claim 38, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein: the outer shell comprises one or more beveled regions, each beveled region defined by a pair of corresponding apexes on a mid-sagittal plane of the outer shell (Schimpf, see annotated figure 12 provided with the rejection of claim 36 above); and the apexes interact with an impact surface to increase the torque (relative to a round surface) experienced by the outer shell as a result of the interaction between the outer shell and the impact surface. Examiner notes the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and 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). As Schimpf has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 39, Schimpf as modified does not explicitly disclose: The helmet as defined in claim 21, further comprising a protective liner attached to an inner surface of the inner member.
However, Piper further teaches a protective liner (212) attached to an inner surface of the inner member (“comfort liner 212 next to the head of the wearer” paragraph 109; see figures 3 and 4).
Piper teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of protective headwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the comfort liner of Piper to the inner surface of the inner member of Schimpf in order to “[provide] sweat and heat management characteristics” (Piper, paragraph 109), which would increase the comfort for the user by reducing the feel of sweat and heat while wearing the helmet.
Regarding claim 40, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein at least one of the outer shell and the inner member is shaped to cover at least one of a crown region, a front region and a back region of a wearer's head (Schimpf, see figure 9).
Regarding claim 41, Schimpf as modified discloses: The helmet as defined in claim 21, wherein the deployment device is positioned at the back of the helmet (Schimpf, see figure 12 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
430
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 12 showing the connecting means 20 (deployment device) positioned at the back of the helmet
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf/Piper, and further in view of Grinneback (US 2018/0168268).
Regarding claim 32, Schimpf as modified does not explicitly disclose: The helmet as defined in claim 21, the deployment device comprising an elastic attachment member connected between the inner member and the outer shell, wherein when the helmet receives the impact, the elastic attachment member deforms to permit relative rotation of the inner member and the outer shell about the laterally oriented pivot axis.
However, Grinneback teaches a deployment device (5a, 5b) comprising an elastic attachment member connected between an inner member (13) and another layer (3), wherein when the helmet receives the impact, the elastic attachment member deforms to permit relative rotation of the inner member and the outer shell (“the attachment device 13 is fixed to the energy absorbing layer 3 by means of two fixing members 5a, 5b, which are adapted to absorb energy and forces elastically” paragraph 57; see figure 5 showing the deformation of the fixing members 5a, 5b allowing rotation).
Grinneback teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of protective headwear. 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 connecting members 20 of Schimpf elastic, as taught by Grinneback, in order to allow the connecting members to “absorb the rotational forces by deforming elastically” (Grinneback, paragraph 58), which would further reduce the force of a potential impact on the user’s head by absorbing some of the energy of the impact, as well as permit the helmet to be reused in its original condition after an impact since the connecting members would deform elastically and be able to return to their original position rather than breaking.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732