DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 6, 8-9, and 17 is/are amended. Claims 7, 13, and 23 remain canceled. Claim(s) 15, 22 is/are newly canceled. Claims 26-27 are newly added. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16-21, and 24-27 are presented for examination on the merits with Species 1 (Figs. 1-13B).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 10 recites the following limitation(s): “The American football helmet”. After a complete review of Applicant’s instant specification, such limitation lacks antecedent basis from the instant written specification.
Claims 11-12, 14, and 16 each recite the following limitation(s): “The American football helmet”. After a complete review of Applicant’s instant specification, such limitation lacks antecedent basis from the instant written specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 10-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “An American football helmet”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, it appears there is no support for such claim limitations. The originally filed disclosure does not discuss an American football helmet and the structures associated to further define an American football helmet from a protective sports helmet. For these reasons, the claim limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. The new matter is “An American football helmet”.
Claims 11-12, 14, and 16 each recite “The American football helmet”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, it appears there is no support for such claim limitations. The originally filed disclosure does not discuss an American football helmet and the structures associated to further define an American football helmet from a protective sports helmet. For these reasons, the claim limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. The new matter is “The American football helmet”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 20-21, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hoying teaches a protective sports helmet (10; Figs. 1-4) to be worn by a wearer (para. 21), the helmet comprising:
a one-piece, molded shell (para. 24) including the following integrally formed components:
a left side portion (24) having a left ear opening (34a);
a lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the left ear opening is formed above a left side portion (24) of the lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below) that extends: (i) outward from the left side portion of the shell, wherein the lower transverse sidewall is positioned at a distance above the lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and (ii) upward and rearward from a reference point (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein said reference point is both located in the left side portion of the shell and positioned above the left ear opening (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
and a ventilation opening formed in the shell (para. 22; see annotated Fig. 2 below), the entire ventilation opening positioned between the lower shell edge and the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and wherein said ventilation opening includes;
an opening length that is defined between opposed ends of the ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the length of the annotated ventilation opening is between the left and right ends of the ventilation opening) and that is oriented substantially parallel with the lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection), and (ii) an opening width that is oriented substantially perpendicular to the opening length (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the width is between the top and bottom edge of the ventilation opening), wherein the opening length is greater than the opening width of the ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
445
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Hoying further teaches the protective sports helmet of claim 17, wherein the shell further includes:
a front portion (22) having a lower frontal shell region (40) that is adjacent a lower frontal edge of the shell (edge of 38; Fig. 1, where 40 is adjacent to the edge of 38);
a continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the plane of the annotated portion is a “continuous gap” because the portion is below the plane of the rest of shell 12 on the sides outside of the annotated portion, the sides are raised areas of shell 12 as disclosed in para. 9) formed through the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the continuous gap is formed through the shell because of a central circular aperture/enlarged endpoint being through the shell, and the annotated continuous gap portion is above 40), and wherein the continuous gap having a segment (see annotated Fig. 3 below) that extends towards the lower frontal edge of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the annotated gap segment extends left and right towards the edge of 38);
and an impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 below) formed in the shell and positioned above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and wherein an extent of the impact attenuation member is positioned adjacent to the segment of the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
534
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Hoying further teaches the protective sports helmet of claim 20, further comprising a front energy attenuation member (46; Fig. 4) secured to an inner surface of the helmet (paras. 8 & 25), and wherein the energy attenuation member extends across an extent of the impact attenuation member (Fig. 4, where “an extent of the impact attenuation member” is the location superimposed by 46).
Regarding claim 27, Hoying further teaches the protective sports helmet of claim 20, wherein the continuous gap includes an enlarged end point region (see annotated Fig. 3 below) that has an end point width (see annotated Fig. 3 below) that is larger than a width at an intermediate region of the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
609
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1), in view of Princip et al. (US 2012/0017358 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoying discloses a protective sports helmet (10; Figs. 1-4) to be worn by a wearer, the helmet comprising (para. 21):
a one-piece, molded shell (para. 24) including the following integrally formed components:
a crown portion (18);
a left side portion (24) extending downward from the crown portion (Figs. 1-2) and having a left ear opening formed therein (34a);
a lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the left ear opening is formed through the left side portion (Fig. 1) and above a left side extent of the lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein a segment of the left side portion (32a) is positioned between the left ear opening and the left side extent of the lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
an upper transverse sidewall that extends outward from the left side portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the upper transverse sidewall located above both the left ear opening and the left side extent of the lower shell edge (see annotated Figs. 1 & 3 below);
a lower transverse sidewall that extends outward from the left side portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the lower transverse sidewall located above the left ear opening and below the upper transverse sidewall;
a raised band (42) that: (i) extends between the upper transverse sidewall and lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Figs. 1 & 3 below), (ii) extends rearward from a portion of the left side portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where “a portion of the left side portion of the shell” is located at and around 42), and (iii) includes an extent (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where “an extent” is the annotated portion between 34a and the lower shell edge as annotated) that is positioned above the ear opening when the protective sports helmet is in a neutral state (Fig. 1) when the protective sports helmet is not worn by a wearer (Fig. 1);
a ventilation opening (para. 22; see annotated Fig. 2 below) positioned between the lower transverse sidewall and the lower shell edge (see annotated Figs. 1-2 below);
and an energy attenuation assembly residing within the one-piece, molded shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below, highlighted area).
PNG
media_image5.png
401
591
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
445
472
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
573
656
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hoying does not directly disclose the protective sports helmet comprising a one-piece injection molded shell, and an energy attenuation assembly residing within the one-piece, injection molded shell. Examiner notes the recitation “injection molded shell” is deemed a product-by process limitation in the claim. Although the structure of Hoying may be formed by a different process, the end product is the same as that of Applicant’s claimed invention. The determination of patentability in a product-by process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art.
Further, Princip discloses a protective sports helmet (120’; para. 65) comprising a one-piece injection molded shell (para. 65); an energy attenuation assembly residing within the one-piece, injection molded shell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one-piece molded shell of Hoying to be an injection molded shell, as taught by Princip, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. When in combination, Hoying and Princip disclose an energy attenuation assembly residing within the one-piece, injection molded shell.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 1, wherein the shell further includes:
a front portion (22) having a lower frontal shell region (40) that is adjacent a lower frontal edge of the shell (edge of 38; Fig. 1, where 40 is adjacent to the edge of 38);
a continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the plane of the annotated portion is a “continuous gap” because the portion is below the plane of the rest of shell 12 on the sides outside of the annotated portion, the sides are raised areas of shell 12 as disclosed in para. 9) formed through the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the continuous gap is formed through the shell because of a central circular aperture/enlarged endpoint being through the shell, and the annotated continuous gap portion is above 40), and wherein the continuous gap having a gap segment (see annotated Fig. 3 below) that extends towards the lower frontal edge of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the annotated gap segment extends left and right towards the edge of 38);
and an impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 below) formed in the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and wherein an extent of the impact attenuation member is positioned adjacent to the gap segment of the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
534
595
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 4, further comprising an energy attenuation member (46, Fig. 4) secured to an inner surface of the shell and configured to underlie the impact attenuation member (paras. 8 & 25).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 4, wherein the continuous gap includes an enlarged end point region (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 4 rejection and Fig. 3 below, where the central circular aperture is an enlarged “end point region” because the material of 12 ends around the edges of the circular aperture/enlarged end point region as shown) that has an end point width (see annotated Fig. 3 below, the diameter of the circular aperture/enlarged end point region) that is larger than a width at a mid-point region of the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the mid-point region surrounds the annotated “width” of the continuous gap; Examiner notes the term “region” is broad and merely means “a large, usually continuous segment of a surface or space”, see defn. no. 1 of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/region, and therefore, the annotated mid-point region includes a width as shown).
PNG
media_image9.png
609
657
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1) and Princip et al. (US 2012/0017358 A1), in view of Brine, III et al. (US 2009/0178184 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 1, with the ventilation opening includes an upper edge (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the lower extent is the raised portion of 42 from 10).
PNG
media_image10.png
291
395
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches a helmet (10) with a ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image11.png
626
651
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper edge of the ventilation of opening of Hoying to be substantially parallel with the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 1, wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection, where the longitudinal centerline is at the upper edge of the ventilation opening) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 2 rejection).
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 2 rejection where the longitudinal centerline is the upper edge of the ventilation opening between the left and right edges) that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 2 rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the longitudinal centerline of the ventilation of opening of Hoying that is substantially parallel with the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1) and Princip et al. (US 2012/0017358 A1), in view of Booher, Sr. et al. (US 2017/0135433 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 1, wherein the shell further includes a gap that is formed through the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below) and above a lower frontal shell region (40; see Fig. 3 & annotated Fig. 3 below), a first substantially linear segment (see annotated Fig. 3 below) and a second substantially linear segment (see annotated Fig. 3 below; Examiner notes the term “segment” is very broad and merely means “the portion of a line between any two points on the line”, see defn. no. 2a of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/segment, and therefore, the gap of Hoying is comprised of a first substantially linear segment and a second substantially linear segment inasmuch as claimed).
PNG
media_image12.png
130
342
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
226
459
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Hoying does not directly disclose the gap is comprised of: a first substantially circular eyelet, a second substantially circular eyelet, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first substantially circular eyelet, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second substantially circular eyelet.
However, Booher teaches a helmet (200, Fig. 2) with a gap (218) is comprised of: a first substantially circular eyelet (left 262), a second substantially circular eyelet (right 262), a first substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a left segment of 218 is a first substantially linear segment) that extends from said first substantially circular eyelet (Fig. 2), and a second substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a right segment of 218 is a second substantially linear segment) that extends from said second substantially circular eyelet (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap, first substantially linear segment, and a second substantially linear segment of Hoying to comprise of a first substantially circular eyelet and a second substantially circular eyelet, as taught by Booher, in order to provide additional stress relief/fractures to the helmet shell during impact (para. 32). When in combination, Hoying, Princip, and Booher disclose a gap is comprised of: a first substantially circular eyelet, a second substantially circular eyelet, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first substantially circular eyelet, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second substantially circular eyelet.
Regarding claim 9, Hoying, Princip, and Booher disclose the protective sports helmet claim of 8. Hoying further discloses wherein the lower frontal shell regions further includes a sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below) that extends: (i) outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below), (ii) upward from a reference point located in the lower frontal shell region the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and (iii) towards a crown portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image14.png
382
519
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10, 16, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hoying discloses an American football helmet to be worn by a wearer (10; Figs. 1-4; para. 4 discloses “The present invention relates to protective sports equipment”, and therefore, is capable of being used/worn as an American football helmet; Examiner submits “an American football helmet” is an intended use recitation for claim 10 and dependent claims hereinafter; The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).), the American football helmet comprising:
a one-piece, molded shell (para. 24) including the following features that are molded as part of the shell:
a crown portion (18);
a left side portion (24) extending downward from the crown portion (at least Fig. 1) and having a left ear opening (34a) formed above a lowermost edge of the left side portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), whereby a segment of the left side portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below) is positioned between the left ear opening and the lowermost edge of the left side portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
an upper transverse sidewall that extends outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a lower transverse sidewall that extends outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the lower transverse sidewall located above the left ear opening and below the upper transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a raised band that extends between the upper transverse sidewall and the lower transverse sidewall (42; see annotated Fig. 1 below), the raised band having:
a frontal dimension that extends at a first location between the upper transverse sidewall and a lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the distance between the upper and lower transverse sidewall is a frontal dimension as depicted by the dotted black vertical line within 42), and a rear dimension that extends at a second location between the upper transverse sidewall and lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the between the upper and lower transverse sidewall is a rear dimension as depicted by the dotted gray vertical line within 42), and wherein the rear dimension is greater than the frontal dimension (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
and a ventilation opening formed in the shell (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and positioned between the lower transverse sidewall and a lower shell edge (see annotated Figs. 1-2 below).
PNG
media_image15.png
403
593
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
445
573
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Hoying discloses the American football helmet claim of 10, wherein the shell further includes:
a front portion (22) having a lower frontal shell region (40) that is adjacent a lower frontal edge of the shell (edge of 38; Fig. 1, where 40 is adjacent to the edge of 38);
a continuous gap formed through the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 4 rejection, where the plane of the annotated portion is a “continuous gap” because the portion is below the plane of the rest of shell 12 on the sides outside of the annotated portion, the sides are raised areas of shell 12 as disclosed in para. 9; Fig. 3 shows the continuous gap above 40), and wherein the continuous gap has a gap segment (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 4 rejection) that extends towards the lower frontal edge of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 4 rejection, where the annotated gap segment extends left and right towards the edge of 38);
and an impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 4 rejection) formed in the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 4 rejection), and wherein an extent of the impact attenuation member is positioned adjacent to the first segment of the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 4 rejection).
Regarding claim 26, Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 16, wherein the continuous gap includes an enlarged end point region (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 6 rejection) that has an end point width (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 6 rejection) that is larger than a width at a mid-point region of the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 6 rejection).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1), in view of Brine, III et al. (US 2009/0178184 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 10, wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 10 rejection), and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 of claim 2 rejection).
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches a helmet (10) with a ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper edge of the ventilation of opening of Hoying to be substantially parallel with the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 12, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 10, wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection, where the longitudinal centerline is at the upper edge of the ventilation opening) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 of claim 2 rejection).
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline that is substantially parallel to a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection where the longitudinal centerline is the upper edge of the ventilation opening between the left and right edges) that is substantially parallel to a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 2 rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the longitudinal centerline of the ventilation of opening of Hoying that is substantially parallel to the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1), in view of Booher, Sr. et al. (US 2017/0135433 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 10, wherein the shell includes a lower frontal shell region (40) that is positioned adjacent and above a lower frontal edge of the shell (edge of 38; Fig. 1, where 40 is adjacent to the edge of 38);
and wherein the shell further includes a gap (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 8 rejection) that is formed through the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (Fig. 3), and the gap including: a first substantially linear segment (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 8 rejection), and a second substantially linear segment (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 8 rejection).
Hoying does not directly disclose the gap including: a first substantially circular eyelet, a second substantially circular eyelet, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first substantially circular eyelet, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second substantially circular eyelet.
However, Booher teaches a helmet (200, Fig. 2) with a gap (218) is comprised of: a first substantially circular eyelet (left 262), a second substantially circular eyelet (right 262), a first substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a left segment of 218 is a first substantially linear segment) that extends from said first substantially circular eyelet (Fig. 2), and a second substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a right segment of 218 is a second substantially linear segment) that extends from said second substantially circular eyelet (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap, first substantially linear segment, and a second substantially linear segment of Hoying to comprise of a first substantially circular eyelet and a second substantially circular eyelet, as taught by Booher, in order to provide additional stress relief/fractures to the helmet shell during impact (para. 32). When in combination, Hoying, Princip, and Booher disclose a gap is comprised of: a first substantially circular eyelet, a second substantially circular eyelet, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first substantially circular eyelet, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second substantially circular eyelet.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1), in view of Brine, III et al. (US 2009/0178184 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 17, wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 17/1 rejection) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 2 rejection, where the lower extent is the raised portion of 42 from 10).
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches a helmet (10) with a ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 2 rejection), wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 2 rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper edge of the ventilation of opening of Hoying to be substantially parallel with the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 19, Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 17, wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection, where the longitudinal centerline is at the upper edge of the ventilation opening) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 2 rejection).
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 2 rejection where the longitudinal centerline is the upper edge of the ventilation opening between the left and right edges) that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 2 rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the longitudinal centerline of the ventilation of opening of Hoying that is substantially parallel with the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1), in view of Booher, Sr. et al. (US 2017/0135433 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet of claim 17, wherein the shell further includes a gap that is formed through the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 8 rejection) and above a lower frontal shell region (40; see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 8 rejection), and the gap is comprised of: a first substantially linear segment (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 8 rejection), and a second substantially linear segment (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 8 rejection; Examiner notes the term “segment” is very broad and merely means “the portion of a line between any two points on the line”, see defn. no. 2a of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/segment, and therefore, the gap of Hoying is comprised of a first substantially linear segment and a second substantially linear segment inasmuch as claimed).
Hoying does not directly disclose the gap is comprised of: a first substantially circular eyelet, a second substantially circular eyelet, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first substantially circular eyelet, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second substantially circular eyelet.
However, Booher teaches a helmet (200, Fig. 2) with a gap (218) is comprised of: a first substantially circular eyelet (left 262), a second substantially circular eyelet (right 262), a first substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a left segment of 218 is a first substantially linear segment) that extends from said first eyelet (Fig. 2), and a second substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a right segment of 218 is a second substantially linear segment) that extends from said second eyelet (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap, first substantially linear segment, and a second substantially linear segment of Hoying to comprise of a first substantially circular eyelet and a second substantially circular eyelet, as taught by Booher, in order to provide additional stress relief/fractures to the helmet shell during impact (para. 32). When in combination, Hoying, Princip, and Booher disclose a gap is comprised of: a first substantially circular eyelet, a second substantially circular eyelet, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first eyelet, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second eyelet.
Regarding claim 25, modified Hoying discloses the protective sports helmet claim of 24, wherein the lower frontal shell regions further includes a first sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 9 rejection) that extends: (i) outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 9 rejection), (ii) upward from a reference point located in the lower frontal shell region the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 9 rejection), and (iii) towards a crown portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 9 rejection).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the amended limitations, in which additional consideration and reinterpretation has been given for a new grounds of rejection, as stated above.
Regarding claim(s) 10-12 and 14-16, the specification objected due to lacking antecedent basis and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) failure to comply with the written description requirement:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts the specification provides explicit support for the term “football helmet”. Applicant further submits that the term “American” does not appear in the text (page 8 of arguments), but the NOCSAE ND002 standard provided in the specification is by definition used for an American football helmet. Additionally, the drawings of the application clearly show characteristics of an American football helmet. As such, the objection(s) and rejection(s) should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because the specific year of the NOCSAE ND002 standard was not provided by Applicant to reference which specific definition of the standard Applicant is arguing. Further, upon review of the NOCSAE ND002 standard, Examiner submits the term “American” is not disclosed. Therefore, Examiner suggests deleting the term “American” in the limitation(s) to potentially overcome the objections and rejections. Examiner emphasizes that “an American football helmet” is an intended use recitation for claim 10 and dependent claims; The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (see pages 24-25 of the Non-final rejection mailed 9/17/2025 and the rejection as stated above). The objection/rejection of claim(s) 10-12 and 14-16 is/are maintained as stated above.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, 14, 16, and 24-25 rejected under USC § 103 and claim 17 rejected under USC § 102:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts the prior art of Hoying fails to disclose “a ventilation opening” because examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 points to “a small unlabeled aperture in the rear of the helmet shell”, which is taking “unreasonable creative license”. Additionally, Applicant argues that the annotated apertures “does not function as a ventilation opening because its surface opening area is too small to provide ventilation outflow of air from within the shell 12” and that small apertures typically receive fasteners to secure Hoying’s internal padded inner core 46. Further, Applicant asserts that Examiner does not label the aperture/ventilation opening’s opening width and length to meet the claimed limitation “wherein said ventilation opening includes: (i) an opening length that is defined between opposed ends of the ventilation opening and that is oriented substantially parallel with the lower shell edge, and (ii) an opening width that is oriented substantially perpendicular to the opening length, wherein the opening length is greater than the opening width of the ventilation opening”.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees that the aperture annotated in the rejection of claim 17 cannot be “a ventilation opening” because the figures clearly show apertures. Further, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use that Applicant presents, then it meets the claim limitation. Additionally, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference(s). Further, Hoying is silent on disclosing the small apertures receive fasteners to secure Hoying’s internal padded inner core 46, and therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the apertures receiving fasteners to receive the internal padded inner core is moot. Regarding Examiner’s unlabeled opening width and length of the aperture/ventilation opening in Hoying, Examiner directs Applicant to the cited annotated Fig. 2, which clearly show that a width and length does exist (see pages 7-8 of the Non-final rejection mailed on 9/17/2025). Additionally, page 7 of the Non-final rejection clearly state “the opening length of the annotated ventilation opening is between the left and right ends of the ventilation opening” and “the [opening] width is between the top and bottom edge of the ventilation opening”. As such, the structures cited of Hoying meets the limitation, inasmuch as has been claimed. The rejection of claim 1, 4-6, and 17 is maintained as stated above.
Regarding claim 20 rejected under 35 USC § 102 and claim 16 rejected under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts the annotated continuous gap does not meet the claimed limitation because the annotated continuous gap is a solid, recessed central panel with opposed side walls that extend inward towards the center of the shell. Further, the annotated continuous gap lacks “a segment that extends towards the lower frontal edge of the shell”. Applicant further submits that Fig. 4 of Hoying shows the shell is continuous and does not include a continuous gap through the shell.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because the annotated continuous gap of Fig. 3 on page 10 of the Non-final rejection meets the limitation, inasmuch as has been claimed. Examiner emphasizes that the annotated portion of the “continuous gap” is below the plane of the rest of the shell, and the sides of the annotated portion are raised to the plane of the rest of the shell. By the sidewalls extending inward towards the center of the shell, the sidewalls of the continuous gap (and the entire panel as annotated) are recessed through the shell, inasmuch as claimed. Examiner notes that if Applicant intends to claim “the continuous gap formed entirely through”, then Applicant should distinguish such structure from Hoying. The rejection of claim 20 is maintained as stated above.
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 4-6, rejected under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts the motivation to modify Hoying with Princip in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design is insufficient for modifying safety-critical structure components. Applicant additionally asserts that the motivation is improper hindsight reconstruction because using the injection molding process taught by Princip to form Hoying’s shell is entirely functional and contributes nothing to the aesthetically pleasing design of Hoying’s shell.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees that modifying Hoying with Princip would change safety-critical structure components. Examiner also directs Applicant to the submitted product-by process limitation explanation for “injection molded shell” as stated on page 15 of the Non-final rejection mailed on 9/17/2025. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As such, the rejection(s) for claim(s) 1, and 4-6 are sustained as stated above.
Regarding claim 10, rejected under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that Hoying fails to teach the raised band with a rear dimension greater than the front dimension, and that Hoying only shows element 42 as a shell protrusion with no disclosure of such tapering dimensions for structural purposes.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions because the annotated Fig. 1 of Hoying on page 27 of the Non-final rejection clearly disclose the limitation as claimed. As such, the rejection for claim 10 is maintained as stated above.
Regarding claim(s) 8-9, 14, and 24-25, rejected under USC § 103:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that relying on Booher to teach the substantially circular eyelets is improper because Hoying discloses a baseball helmet and Booher describes a flexible shell for football. As such there would be no motivation or obviousness to combine the two types of helmets.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions because In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap, first substantially linear segment, and a second substantially linear segment of Hoying to comprise of a first substantially circular eyelet and a second substantially circular eyelet, as taught by Booher, in order to provide additional stress relief/fractures to the helmet shell during impact (see para. 32 of Booher on pages 23-24 of the Non-final rejection mailed on 9/17/2025). The rejection for claim(s) 8-9, 14, and 24-25 is/are maintained as stated above.
Regarding claim(s) 2, 3, 11-12, and 18-19, rejected under USC § 103:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that Brine “fail[s] to disclose the structural features of independent claims 1, 10, and 17”.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner submits that Brine is not required to disclose all of the structural features of independent claims 1, 10, and 17. The primary art of Hoying as modified by Princip for claim 1, and the primary art of Hoying for claims 10 and 17 disclose/teach the structures as claimed. The prior art of Brine was only used to modify the specific structures as recited on pages 19-21, 29-30, and 33-34 in the Non-final rejection mailed on 9/17/2025. The rejection for claim(s) 2, 3, 11-12, and 18-19 is/are maintained as stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
1515The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See similar helmet structures in the PTO-892 form attached to this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights