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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4-11, 15-24 are 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.
Claim 1, lines 10-14, recites the limitation “at least a first mask having a first outer contour, the helmet shell and the first mask forming a first type of helmet; and a second mask having a second outer contour, the helmet shell and the second mask forming a second type of helmet”, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear, whether, applicant is referring as a Markush claims which recites a list of alternatively useable members and/or the applicant is referring to the at least a first mask having a first outer contour; the helmet shell and the first mask forming a first type of helmet; and a second mask having a second outer contour; the helmet shell and the second mask forming a second type of helmet.
Furthermore, the term “the second type of helmet having different application than the first type of helmet”, it is unclear how different is considered to be different? For the purpose of examination and as best understood, the examiner is interpreted to mean that “at least a first mask having a first outer contour; the helmet shell and the first mask forming a first type of helmet; and a second mask having a second outer contour; the helmet shell and the second mask forming a second type of helmet.”
Claims 4-11, 15-24 are dependent of claim 1 and are likewise indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouchard Fortin et al. (2018/0295926—hereinafter, Bouchard).
Regarding claim 1, Bouchard discloses a helmet (fig.1) comprising: a helmet shell (102) for receiving a head of a wearer of the helmet, the helmet shell including: a crown portion (the structure of element 102), a jaw shield portion integrally connected to the crown portion, and an aperture edge (see the annotated fig.2A below) formed by the crown portion and the jaw shield portion, a front aperture being defined by the aperture edge (the shields can be adapted to substantially close the opening 114 to effectively protect the wearer, fig.2A, 8); and a mask (120 and/or goggle, par [0054]) selectively connected to the helmet shell, the mask being disposed in the front aperture, the mask being chosen from a family of masks (120 and/or goggle, par [0054]);
the family of masks including at least a first mask (element 120 having an outer contour) having a first outer contour; the helmet shell and the first mask forming a first type of helmet (fig.1). But Bouchard does not disclose a second mask having a second outer contour; both the first and second outer contour being sized and shaped to conform to a contact the aperture edge of the helmet shell. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a second mask having a second outer contour as claimed and both the first and second outer contour being sized and shaped to conform to a contact the aperture edge of the helmet shell, such modification would be considered a mere of duplication in part involved routine skill in the art; furthermore, the first and second masks are configured to conform and contact the aperture edge of the helmet shell.
Furthermore, Bouchard does not disclose the first type of helmet is using for a first application and the second type of helmet is using for a second application is different than the first application. However, it would have been obvious matter design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to recognize that first helmet type can be using for under wet condition and the second helmet type can be using for dry condition, that involved routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bouchard dose not disclose a third mask of the family of masks, the third mask being selectively connectable to the helmet shell, a third outer contour of the third mask conforming to the aperture edge, the helmet shell and the third mask connected thereto forming a third helmet type, the third helmet type having a different application than the first type of helmet and the second type of helmet.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a third mask having third outer contour as claimed and the third outer contour being sized and shaped to conform to a contact the aperture edge of the helmet shell, such modification would be considered a mere of duplication in part involved routine skill in the art.
Bouchard does not disclose the third helmet type having different application than the first type of helmet and the second type of helmet.
However, it would have been obvious matter design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to recognize that first helmet type can be using for under wet condition and the second helmet type can be using for dry condition and the third helmet type can be using for high speed driving, that involved routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Bouchard discloses wherein the first outer contour and the second outer contour are identical (in claim 1, the second mask is duplication of the first mask therefore the first outer contour is identical with one another).
Regarding claim 24, Bouchard discloses wherein: the first outer contour contacts the aperture edge of the helmet shell along an entirety of the first outer contour when the first mask is connected to the helmet shell; and the second outer contour contacts the aperture edge of the helmet shell along an entirety of the second outer contour when the second mask is connected to the helmet shell (in claim 1, the second mask is duplication of the first mask therefore the first outer contour is identical with one another; and the outer contour of first mask 120 is corresponding to the inner surface 122(aperture edge) of the helmet).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11, 15-20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-11, 15-20-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY K TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-3495. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/Timothy K Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights