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
Applicant’s response of 9/9/2025 is received. Claims 4, 5, 8, 14, and 20 are amended and claims 1-20 are pending. A specification amendment was also submitted and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bottlang (U.S. 2014/0013492). Bottlang discloses the invention as claimed. For claim 1, Bottlang teaches a helmet comprising: a shell 104 (disclosed as rigid and/or non-compressible to distribute impact forces over an extended area); a liner 105 coupled to the shell (at 103a,c) and defining a liner cavity (between the liner and the shell); and a cellular insert 102 received within and filling the liner cavity; wherein:
the cellular insert 102 comprises a plurality of energy absorbing cells; and the liner and the cellular insert together define an interior surface of the helmet.
For claim 2, the cellular insert 102 defines at least 50% of an area of the interior surface of the helmet as Figure 1 shows the insert 102 defines the entire area of the interior surface of the helmet.
For claim 3 (effective filing date 4/6/22), the liner cavity and the cellular insert 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 the honeycomb material of the cellular insert is compressible to some degree and may be subject to compression as the liner is detached from the cellular insert and the insert is removed from the liner cavity.
For claim 6, Bottlang teaches 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 (see Fig.1 for arched configuration).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottlang ‘492 in view of Chilson (2012/0180199). Note that claim 4 receives an effective filing date of 12/7/2023. Bottlang discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the plurality of energy absorbing cells comprises open cells. However, Bottlang doesn’t teach the liner is seamless. Chilson teaches a seamless helmet liner 124 and teaches that joints or seams may compromise the shock absorbing capabilities and/or structural integrity of the liner during impact of the helmet 100. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bottlang’s liner to form the liner as seamless, as Chilson teaches that this avoids joints or seams which would compromise the shock absorbing and/or structural integrity of the liner during impact.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottlang in view of Sajic (U.S. 2008/0307568). Bottlang discloses the invention substantially as claimed, with 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 teaches a helmet 10 with 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 a longitudinal axis 24 of each cell is arranged at an angle between O and 45 degrees to a line normal to an adjacent point on the interior surface of the shell adjacent to the respective cells, as Sajic teaches “Preferably, the longitudinal axis of the tubes is arranged at an angle of between 5 and 45 degrees to a line normal to the impact surface, most preferably at an angle of between 5 and 30 degrees 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 Bottlang such that the longitudinal axes of each of the cells is arranged at an angle between O and 45 degrees to a line normal to an adjacent point on the interior surface of the shell adjacent to the respective cells, 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 100.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottlang ‘492 in view of Sajic ‘568. For claim 7, Bottlang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Bottlang teaches a helmet, comprising: a shell 801 comprising a first vent defining a first opening (shown in Fig.8); a liner 802 adjacent to and attached to the shell, the liner comprising a cavity at least partially aligned with the first vent (the liner and shell are coextensive such that the cavity comprised by the liner is at least partially aligned with the first vent); and an insert 804 comprising a plurality of cells; wherein: a first plurality of the cells engages interior sidewalls of the cavity; the insert spans across at least a portion of the first vent; at least a portion of the liner is positioned between the shell and the insert. However, Bottlang doesn’t disclose the cells comprise tubular structures and the longitudinal axes 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. Sajic teaches a helmet with a cellular insert comprising tubular structures as Sajic teaches the material comprises Tubus Honeycombs™.
For claim 8, Sajic teaches the longitudinal axes of each of the tubular structures are arranged at an angle between 0° and 45° to a line normal to an adjacent point on an inner surface of the shell adjacent to the respective tubular structures as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
For claim 9, Sajic teaches the cells have regular or irregular geometries (par.15).
For claim 10, Bottlang as modified by Sajic 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 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 as Bottlang teaches the holes may allow for ventilation through the honeycomb cells of the insert/intermediate layer 804.
For claim 11, Bottlang as modified by Sajic teaches an angle between a side surface of the liner 105/802 defining a perimeter of the cavity and a surface of the liner adjacent to the side surface and further defining the cavity is 90 degrees of less (see annotated drawing as in NFOA of 3/11/25).
For claim 12, Bottlang as modified by Sajic teaches an inner surface of the helmet is defined by the liner and the insert; and the insert defines at least 50% of an area of the inner surface of the helmet as in Figure 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submits claims 1-3 and 6 are currently rejected as anticipated by Bottlang (US 2014/0013492) and Bottlang doesn’t teach the cellular insert fills the liner cavity and the liner and cellular insert together define an interior surface of the helmet, as the intermediate layer 102 is positioned between outer layer 104 and inner layer 105 and there is no single layer including a cavity into which the intermediate layer 102 is received as required by claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this interpretation of Bottlang. Bottlang’s liner 105 defines a liner cavity as a cavity exists between the liner and the shell. The liner and the cellular insert together define an interior surface of the helmet as the helmet has an exterior surface and an interior surface configured to contact the wearer’s head and the liner and cellular insert define the interior surface of the helmet. It’s not clear how the argument “there is no single layer including a cavity” relates to applicant’s position, as there is no recitation of a single layer in the claims. Regarding the claim 1 limitation that the cellular insert “fills” the liner cavity and applicant’s argument that Bottlang’s cellular insert doesn’t fill the liner cavity because layer 202 is disclosed as suspended between layers 204,205 and the insert is capable of moving between layers 204 and 205, the examiner notes that the scope of claim 1 doesn’t require that the cellular insert is incapable of movement relative to the layers 204,205. The insert fills the cavity as the insert’s upper surface extends to the helmet shell and the insert’s lower surface extends to the liner. It’s not clear whether there is an air gap as pointed to by the applicant, as Bottlang doesn’t discuss an air gap.
Regarding claims 13-20, Applicant’s remarks are persuasive and the rejections of these claims are withdrawn.
For the IDS considered 3/11/25, Applicant submits that the 2 US references that were lined through were cited by the Examiner in the parent applications. It is noted that both references were listed twice on the IDS of 12/7/23 (See US Patents, line 35 and US Patent Publications- line 31) such that the second instance for both was lined through by the Examiner.
For the NPL Document, Applicant submits that the lined-through reference (#1) was previously considered in Applicant’s IDS of 4/6/2022 in parent Application 17/714,864 and considered by Examiner in the NF Office Action of 3/9/2023. The examiner notes that there is no copy of this reference in the file of 17/714,864.
For the Foreign Patent Document, there is no copy provided for reference #1 as required by 37 CFR 1.98. See MPEP 609.04(a)(II).
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732