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 amendment, filed 24 November 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1, 7, 9-22
Canceled
2-6, 8, and 23
Pending
1, 7, 9-22
Presented for Examination
1, 7, 9-22
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Although both frusto-conical and pyramidal elongate tapering members are known in the art as set forth in at least the rejections of claims 13 and 14 below, the prior art does not disclose a single helmet having both frusto-conical and pyramidal tapering members, and there would be no motivation to provide a single helmet with both tapering members.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections and 112(b) Rejections
Overcome by the amendments and withdrawn. Please note that claims 9 and 11 were properly rejected under 112(b) in the previous Office Action for depending from a rejected claim.
102 Rejections
The amendments overcome the 102 rejection with Scanlon and the rejections are withdrawn.
The arguments against the Summers reference are drawn to newly added subject matter and are addressed in the rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pyramidal tapering member (claims 14 and 16) and the subject matter of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Present FIG 1 supports a frustoconical tapering member, but it is not clear which, if any, of the figures is showing a pyramidal tapering member.
Page 5 line 17-19 discloses a frusto-conical tapering member and a pyramidal tapering member, but it is not clear from the disclosure that this embodiment is shown in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 12 and 14 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.
The term “low” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “generally” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-10, 13, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Summers et al. (US 3877076 A), hereinafter, “Summers”.
As to claim 1, as shown in the annotated figures below, Summers discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
426
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
843
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Summers discloses at least one elongate tapering member formed unitarily from foam (hollow shock absorbing members 3 make up the liner; FIGS 6 and 8 show an embodiment where 3 are tapered; col 1 line 60-65 discloses the liner is a foamed plastic).
As to claim 7, Summers discloses wherein the at least one elongate tapering member is affixed to the inward facing portion of the outer surface at the base portion (see figures).
As to claim 9, Summers discloses the base portion of the at least one elongate tapering member comprises a recess (FIGS 6 and 8, col 1 line 30-35 describes the members 3 as hollow and the hollow portion is a recess/ blind bore).
As to claim 10, Summers the recess comprises a blind bore in a center of the base portion (FIGS 6 and 8, col 1 line 30-35 describes the members 3 as hollow and the hollow portion is a recess/ blind bore).
As to claim 13, Summers discloses the at least one elongate tapering member is frusto-conical in shape (FIGS 6 and 8).
As to claim 15, Summers discloses two or more elongate tapering members (FIGS 6 and 8).
As to claim 17, Summers discloses a spacing between the two or more elongate members is uniform (FIGS 1, 6, and 8 show the spacing is uniform).
As to claim 18, Summers discloses spacing between the two or more elongate members is varied (FIGS 1, 6, and 8 show the spacing between the two top portions is greater than the spacing between the two base portions; therefore, the spacing is considered to be varied) to increase or decrease local resistance to deformation of the elongate members in response to an incident force (capable of increasing or decreasing local resistance).
As to claim 19, Summers discloses wherein the inner shell is formed of a rigid or semirigid material (the inner shell and members are formed of the same material, and both are “a stiff material” as disclosed in col 1 line 54).
Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McInnis (US 9572391 B2).
As to claim 1, as shown in the annotated figures below, McInnis discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
426
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
644
549
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, McInnis discloses at least one elongate tapering member formed unitarily from foam (100 is memory foam as disclosed in col 4 line 20-50).
As to claim 11, McInnis discloses the at least one elongate tapering member is formed from a memory foam (100 is memory foam as disclosed in col 4 line 20-50).
As to claim 12, McInnis discloses the memory foam has a low springback rate (this is a known property of memory foam).
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) 14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summers et al. (US 3877076 A), hereinafter, “Summers” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scanlon (US 20170196290 A1).
As to claim 14, Summers does not disclose the at least one elongate tapering member is generally pyramidal in shape.
Scanlon teaches a similar elongate tapering member including the member is generally pyramidal in shape (105 as described in para. 0034).
The configuration of the claimed invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the member to be generally pyramidal in shape, for the purpose of providing the desired aesthetics and impact protection.
Claim(s) 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summers et al. (US 3877076 A), hereinafter, “Summers” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maddux (US 20100299812 A1).
As to claim 20, Summers does not disclose the outer surface is formed of a rigid or semirigid material. Summers is silent as to the material of the outer surface, but it is known in the art to provide a rigid outer shell/ outer surface.
Maddux teaches a similar helmet including the outer surface is formed of a rigid or semirigid material (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a rigid or semirigid outer surface, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a rigid or semirigid outer surface, in order to protect the wearer’s head from impacts.
Claim(s) 21-22 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summers et al. (US 3877076 A).
As to claim 21, Summers does not disclose a further impact absorbing layer disposed radially outward from the outer surface, and a further outer surface disposed radially outward therefrom in the FIG 6 and 8 embodiments, but does disclose another embodiment with the features of claim 21 (6 and 7 in FIG 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the FIG 1/6/8 embodiment with an impact absorbing layer for the purpose of preventing the members from damaging the shell (col 1 line 65-col 2 line 5).
As to claim 22, Summers does not disclose a supplementary impact absorbing layer disposed radially inward from the inner shell, and a supplementary inner shell disposed radially inward therefrom in the FIG 6 and 8 embodiments, but does disclose another embodiment with the features of claim 22 (14 in FIG 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the FIG 1/6/8 embodiment with an impact absorbing layer for the purpose of preventing the members from damaging the shell (col 2 line 5-15).
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732