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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/15/2026 has been entered. The RCE includes amendments to claims 1 and 7. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first set of cells allows…” should be revised to recite “the first set of cells is configured to allow…” to properly recite the intended function of the first set of cells.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 depends from claim 13 and recites an angle between a bottom surface of the liner cavity and a side surface of the liner cavity is 90 degrees or less.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 13-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier (U.S. 5,950,244) in view of Sajic ‘568. Fournier discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
Fournier teaches a helmet 10 comprising a shell 12, liner 16 coupled to the shell and defining a liner cavity 25 and a padding insert 19 received within and filling the liner cavity 25 (Fig.6), wherein the shape of the liner cavity 25 is configured to retain the insert 19 based on an expansion pressure of sides of the insert against sides 28 of the liner 16 defining the liner cavity, and the liner and the insert together define an interior surface of the helmet. Column 5, lines 48-62 disclose the interference fit between the insert 19 and cavity 25 with the insert being larger in at least one circumferential dimension than the corresponding cavity 25 such that the insert must be compressed before insertion into the corresponding cavity and after insertion, the insert undergoes a slight expansion in turn forcing at least a portion of outer peripheral surface 28 of the cavity. The cavity has a shape and the shape is configured to retain the cellular insert based on an expansion pressure of sides of the cellular insert against sides of the liner defining the liner cavity, and the liner and the cellular insert together define an interior surface of the helmet. Fournier teaches the interference fit provides ease of assembly and replaceability of parts. However, Fournier doesn’t teach the insert is a cellular insert. Sajic teaches it’s known to form an impact dispersing insert in a helmet from an array of energy absorbing cells providing desirable energy absorbing properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fournier’s inserts to form as cellular inserts as taught by Sajic, as the cellular material is known for superior energy absorbing function.
For claim 2, the modified Fournier doesn’t explicitly teach the cellular insert 19 defines at least 50% of an area of the interior surface of the helmet. However, Fournier’s inserts 19 are disclosed as strategically located so as to provide optimal impact absorption and dissipation, while also providing optimal stabilization of and comfort for a wearer’s head. One of ordinary skill can determine the extent or number of inserts necessary for optimal impact protection and dissipation to arrive at the at least 50% of an area limitation through routine experimentation, based upon the intended use of the helmet.
For claim 3, the modified Fournier teaches the liner cavity 25 and the cellular insert 19 are shaped such that the cellular insert is compressed to insert the cellular insert into the liner cavity or remove the cellular insert from the liner cavity as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
For claim 4, the modified Fournier teaches the liner is seamless and the plurality of energy absorbing cells comprise open cells as Sajic teaches the cells are hollow and Fournier’s liner 16 is continuous and seamless at least between respective inserts 19.
For claim 5, Fournier as modified by Sajic teaches each of the cells of the plurality of energy absorbing cells is arranged to have a first end facing towards an exterior of the helmet and a second end facing towards an interior of the helmet, but doesn't explicitly teach a longitudinal axis of each of the cells is arranged at an angle between 0° and 45° to a line normal to an adjacent point on the interior surface of the shell adjacent to the respective cells. Sajic’s helmet 10 includes a cellular insert (arrangement of tubes/cells 22) received within a liner cavity defined by a liner 40, the insert comprising a plurality of energy absorbing cells 22 and each cell has a first end facing towards an exterior of the helmet and a second end facing towards an interior of the helmet, and teaches a longitudinal axis 24 of each cell is arranged at an angle between 0° and 45° to a line normal to an adjacent point on the interior surface of the shell adjacent to the respective cells which substantially overlaps the claimed range of 0° to 45°, as Sajic teaches "Preferably, the longitudinal axis of the tubes is arranged at an angle of between 5° and 45° to a line normal to the impact surface, most preferably at an angle of between 5° and 30° to a line normal to the impact surface." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fournier such that the longitudinal axes of each of the cells is arranged at an angle between 0 and 45° to a line normal to an adjacent point on the interior surface of the shell adjacent to the respective cells, as Sajic teaches substantially all the values of the claimed range and a modification of 5 degrees is negligible as this arrangement of the longitudinal axes of the tubular structures relative to the inner surface of the shell is known in the art to deflect impact forces and optimize the energy absorbing performance of the helmet 100.
For claim 13, Fournier teaches a helmet, comprising a shell 12; a liner 16 adjacent to and attached to the shell, the liner 16 defining a liner cavity 25; and an insert 19 positioned in and substantially filling the liner cavity, wherein a shape of the insert relative to a shape of the liner cavity is configured such that the insert is deformed in order to be inserted into or removed from the liner cavity, and the shape of the liner cavity is configured to retain the insert based on an expansion pressure of sides of the insert against sides of the liner defining the liner cavity as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Fournier doesn’t teach the insert comprises an array of cells positioned in and substantially filling the liner cavity. Sajic teaches it’s known to form an impact dispersing insert in a helmet from an array of energy absorbing cells providing desirable energy absorbing properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fournier’s inserts to form as cellular inserts as taught by Sajic, as the cellular material is known for superior energy absorbing function.
For claim 14, the modified Fournier teaches the insert has a curved shape substantially corresponding to a curved interior surface of the liner cavity as in Fournier’s Figures 4 and 5 (see curved sides 38,50 of the insert 19 and the cavity (curved surfaces 28,52) in Fig.5.
For claim 15, the modified Fournier teaches each of the cells of the array of cells comprises a hollow tube (Sajic discloses “tube” is used to denote a hollow structure).
For claim 17, the modified Fournier teaches an angle between a bottom surface of the liner cavity and a side surface of the liner cavity is 90 degrees or less, as in Figure 4 with bottom surface 20
For claim 18, the modified Fournier teaches the insert 19 has a thickness less than or equal to the liner as in Figure 12 when the insert is compressed.
For claim 19, the modified Fournier teaches a curved interior surface of the helmet is defined by the liner and the insert as in Figure 6.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier ‘244 in view of Sajic ‘568 as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, above, and further in view of Bottlang ‘492. Fournier discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Fournier doesn’t teach the liner cavity is configured to receive the cellular insert in an arched configuration such that a first length of a curved surface of the cellular insert proximal the shell is greater than a second length of a curved surface of the cellular insert distal the shell; and a shape of the cellular insert matches a shape of the liner cavity and the shell comprising a first vent opening, a first set of cells of the array of cells is at least partially aligned with and at least partially visible through the first vent opening, and the first set of cells allows air to enter through the first vent opening and pass through toward an interior of the helmet. Bottlang teaches a helmet with a cellular insert 102 received in a liner cavity, the liner cavity configured to receive the cellular insert in an arched configuration such that a first length of a curved surface of the cellular insert proximal the shell is greater than a second length of a curved surface of the cellular insert distal the shell and a shape of the cellular insert matches a shape of the liner cavity as Figure 1 shows the arched configuration, with the liner cavity shape following the arched shape of the shell. The first length of a curved surface of the cellular insert being greater than a second length of a curved surface of the cellular insert distal the shell provides a greater surface area at the surface facing the shell and facing an impact force for absorbing and reducing impact forces received the helmet wearer’s head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fournier such that the liner cavity is configured to receive the cellular insert in an arched configuration such that a first length of a curved surface of the cellular insert proximal the shell is greater than a second length of a curved surface of the cellular insert distal the shell; and a shape of the cellular insert matches a shape of the liner cavity as this configuration provides a greater surface area of the insert closer to an impact force received by the helmet shell in order to dissipate the impact force and protect the wearer’s head.
For claim 16, Bottlang teaches a helmet structure with an outer layer 801 of the helmet comprising a first vent 803 defining a first opening (Shown in Fig.8) and a first set of cells 804 of the array of cells is at least partially aligned with and at least partially visible through the first vent opening, and the first set of cells allows air to enter through the first vent opening and pass through toward an interior of the helmet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fournier to provide the shell comprising a first vent defining a first opening and the insert spans across at least a portion of the first vent as Bottlang teaches this configuration allows for ventilation through the hollow cells of the insert and out through the first vent for improved wearer comfort.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier ‘244 in view of Sajic '568 and Bottlang ‘492. For claim 7, Fournier discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Fournier teaches a helmet, comprising: a shell 12, a liner 16 adjacent to and attached to the shell 12, the liner 16 comprising a cavity 25 and an insert 19 (Fig.6), wherein the insert engages interior sidewalls of the cavity and the shape of the cavity 25 is configured to retain the insert based on an expansion pressure of sides of the insert against the interior sidewalls of the cavity as in col.5, lines 48-62. However, Fournier doesn't teach the insert comprising a plurality of cells and the shell comprising a first vent defining a first opening and the insert spans across at least a portion of the first vent and the cells comprise tubular structures. Sajic teaches an insert comprising a plurality of cells and the cells comprise tubular structures. Bottlang teaches a helmet structure with an outer layer 801 comprising a first vent 803 defining a first opening (shown in Fig.8) and an insert 804 spanning across at least a portion of the first vent. Bottlang teaches the first vent allows for ventilation through the array of honeycomb cells of the insert. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fournier to provide the shell comprising a first vent defining a first opening and the insert spans across at least a portion of the first vent as Bottlang teaches this configuration allows for ventilation through the hollow cells of the insert and this structure is expected to improve wearer comfort.
For claims 8 and 9, Fournier doesn’t teach a longitudinal axis of the tubular structures are arranged at angles between 0° and 45° of lines normal to points on an inner surface of the shell adjacent to the respective tubular structures and the cells have regular or irregular geometries (claim 9). Sajic’s helmet 10 includes a cellular insert (arrangement of tubes/cells 22) received within a liner cavity defined by a liner 40, the insert comprising a plurality of energy absorbing cells 22 and each cell has a first end facing towards an exterior of the helmet and a second end facing towards an interior of the helmet, and teaches a longitudinal axis 24 of each cell is arranged at an angle between 0° and 45° to a line normal to an adjacent point on the interior surface of the shell adjacent to the respective cells which substantially overlaps the claimed range of 0° to 45°, as Sajic teaches "Preferably, the longitudinal axis of the tubes is arranged at an angle of between 5° and 45° to a line normal to the impact surface, most preferably at an angle of between 5° and 30° to a line normal to the impact surface." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fournier such that the longitudinal axes of each of the cells is arranged at an angle between 0 and 45° to a line normal to an adjacent point on the interior surface of the shell adjacent to the respective cells, as Sajic teaches substantially all the values of the claimed range and a modification of 5 degrees is negligible as this arrangement of the longitudinal axes of the tubular structures relative to the inner surface of the shell is known in the art to deflect impact forces and optimize the energy absorbing performance of the helmet 100.
For claim 9, Sajic teaches the cells have regular or irregular geometries as col.3, lines 5-20 disclose the tube denotes a hollow structure having any regular or irregular geometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fournier such that the longitudinal axes of each of the cells is arranged at an angle between 0 and 45 degrees to a line normal to an adjacent point on the interior surface of the shell adjacent to the respective cells, and the cells have regular or irregular geometry, as Sajic teaches this arrangement of the longitudinal axes is known in the art to deflect impact forces and optimize the energy absorbing performance of the helmet and the tubes’ geometry is a circular cylindrical or conical as known in the helmet art.
For claim 10, the modified Fournier teaches an embodiment in Figure 8 wherein the shell 801 comprises a first vent opening; a first set of cells 804 of the array of cells is at least partially aligned with the first vent opening; and the first set of cells allows air to enter through the first vent opening and pass through toward an interior of the helmet as Bottlang teaches the holes may allow for ventilation through the honeycomb cells of the insert/intermediate layer 804. A second vent opening is shown in Figure 8 and modifying Fournier would result in the cavity at least partially aligned with the second vent. Fournier’s modified helmet includes the first and second vent arranged symmetrically in the shell as Bottlang teaches the holes/vents may be ordered in an array or random in placement.
For claim 11, the modified Fournier teaches an angle between a side surface of the liner 16 defining a perimeter of the cavity and a surface 28 of the liner 16 adjacent to the side surface and further defining the cavity. The angle appears to be 90 degrees or less and the adjacent surface 28 is curved in correspondence with the shell and the insert is oriented normal to the shell (also see embodiment with curved adjacent surface of the liner in Figs. 4 and 5 exploded views). Note that a point on the side surface of the liner and a surface of the liner adjacent to the side surface could be selected to arrive at an angle of 90 degrees or less based on Fournier’s teaching.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 12, the modified Fournier teaches an inner surface of the helmet is defined by the liner and the insert but Fournier doesn’t explicitly teach the insert defines at least 50% of an area of the inner surface of the helmet. However, Fournier’s inserts 19 are disclosed as strategically located so as to provide optimal impact absorption and dissipation, while also providing optimal stabilization of and comfort for a wearer’s head. One of ordinary skill could have arrived at the extent or number of inserts to arrive at the at least 50% of an area limitation through routine experimentation, based upon the intended use of the helmet.
Response to Arguments
The claim rejections are revised in view of Applicant’s claim amendments and further review of the prior art. Note that the previously indicated allowable subject matter is withdrawn upon further consideration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights