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 12/3/2025 is received. Claims 1, 15, 17, 19-21, 25-28, 47-49 are amended and claims 107 and 108 are newly added. Claims 4-14, 22-24, 29, 30, 33-45 and 50-106 remain cancelled. Claims 1-3, 15-21, 25-28, 31, 32, 46-49, 107, and 108 are pending.
A substitute specification and new drawing sheet (1 pg, Figs 24 and 25) were also received and entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/3/25. These drawings are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 108 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 25: delete “wherein an energy absorbing layer (40) comprises by the helmet and/or the second layer (30)” and replace with “wherein said helmet comprising an energy absorbing layer and said energy absorbing layer and/or the second layer (30)….” for improved clarity.
For claim 108, delete “wherein” in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The detailed description doesn’t include details of Figures 24 and 25.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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. The embodiment of claims 1 and 2 illustrated in Figure 14 of the originally filed application does not include the structural features of claims 25 and 28.
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.
Claims 3, 21, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “low rolling resistance in the range from .0001 to .2, and also recites “particularly .03 to .05”, “particularly .025 to .04” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Also, the term “particularly” renders the claim indefinite as it’s not clear whether the limitations following “particularly" are intended to be positively recited or are merely suggestive. Claim 31 is unclear as it recites the first layer comprising an edge region. However, claim 1 also recites the first layer comprising an edge region such that claim 31 appears to be redundant. Claims 3 and 32 are also indefinite as they recite a broad range followed by more narrow ranges, with the narrow ranges preceded by “preferably” such that it’s unclear if the limitations following “preferably” are intended to be positively recited or are merely suggested ranges. Further to claim 3, “about 20%” is unclear as the metes and bounds of “about 20%” are not disclosed. Claim 32 is interpreted as redundant as claim 1 recites the angle in the range from 20 to 80 degrees.
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, 2, 21, 31, 32, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat ’270 in view of Markison (U.S. 10,716,342). Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 1, Howat teaches a helmet 115 comprising: a first layer 11 forming an outer surface of the helmet, a second layer (not labelled- layer forming the lower surface of layer 2), and a reactive layer (rigid balls) sandwiched between the first layer and the second layer. However, Howat doesn’t teach the first layer comprises an edge region that is inclined by an angle relative to a normal N to that portion of the outer surface of the second layer which faces the edge region, the angle being in the range from 20 to 80 degrees. Markison teaches an analagous impact protection system 10 with a first layer 14,16 forming an outer surface that receives an impact force, the layer includes an edge region that is inclined by an angle relative to a normal N to that portion of the outer surface of the second layer 12 which faces the edge region, the angle in the range from 20 to 80 degrees (Markison discloses the angular range as 25 to 89 degrees which substantially overlaps the claimed range). Column 8, lines 18-28 discuss the layer/component 16 receiving the impact force 18 dampens the impact force based on the angle of the side walls. Based on Markison’s disclosure, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the angled edge region serves to diffuse impact forces as the force is at least partially deflected toward the angled edge region to reduce the degree of impact force transmitted to the second layer and subsequently to the 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 Howat’s first layer to comprise an edge region that is inclined by an angle relative to a normal N to that portion of the outer surface of the second layer which faces the edge region, the angle being in the range from 20 to 80 degrees, as Markison teaches that it’s known in the helmet art to form an impact receiving outer layer with an inclined edge for dampening and dissipating an impact force to reduce impact forces transmitted to the wearer’s head and to the second layer.
For claim 2, Howat’s modified helmet comprises the reactive layer comprises a plurality of rigid balls (disclosed as ball bearings) that remain rigid during normal use of the helmet (understood as when “no impact occurs”) and are configured to roll at an impact threshold over an outer surface of the second layer. Howat teaches the spherical ball bearings 21 are able to roll in an omnidirectional manner on the inner surface of a retainer capsule 11 as disclosed in col.8, lines 27-32.
For claim 21, Howat’s modified helmet teaches the reactive layer is configured to facilitate movement between the first layer and second layer by the rolling of balls of the plurality of balls between the first and second layer. A low rolling resistance coefficient in the range from .0001 to .2, is provided between the balls and an inner surface of the first layer or between the balls and an outer surface of the second layer, as the limitation recites a function of the balls and the claim doesn't provide further details as to any other structures resulting in the claimed low rolling resistance.
For claim 31, as best understood, Howat's modified first layer has an edge region including an edge of the first layer and a surrounding region and this edge region is considered as configured to inhibit a transfer of a radial force from the first layer to the second layer as the first layer is disclosed as protectively rigid comprising polymeric materials with reinforcing material, e.g. carbon fibres, glass fibres, etc. to disperse or inhibit transfer of a radial force.
For claim 32, the modified Howat teaches the angle in the range of from 20 to 80 degrees.
For claim 49, Howat teaches an energy necessary to release each ball is in the range between .005 Joules and .5 Joules per ball as the claim recites functional limitations and doesn't further limit the helmet structure and energy values in the claimed range are expected to release each ball.
Claim 3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ’342. Howat teaches the balls are distributed along an inner surface of the first layer. However, Howat doesn't explicitly provide the degree of coverage of the balls such that they cover an area corresponding to 10% to 50%, preferably 15% to 30%, preferably about 20% of the area of said inner surface of the first layer. Howat's Figure 11 shows ball bearings of the reactive layer distributed along an inner surface of the first layer such that they cover an area at a lower end of the claimed ranges, e.g. 10% to 50% of the area of the inner surface of the first layer. Howat teaches the ball bearings are friction reduction means to allow relative rotation between first and second layers and freedom of motion of the wearer's head through fields of vision. The relative movement also disperses any impact force received by the first layer/outer shell of the helmet. The degree of coverage of the balls is considered as a results effective variable as Howat teaches the relative rotation between respective layers is a result of the ball bearings oriented between the layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Howat such that the balls are distributed along an inner surface of the first layer to cover an area corresponding to 10% to 50%, preferably 15% to 30%, preferably about 20% of the area of said inner surface of the first layer since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a results effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and optimizing the coverage results in a desired relative movement between first and second layers of the helmet to disperse impact force received by the helmet.
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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ‘342 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Leon (U.S. 9,032,558). Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach the first layer is a twin sheet assembly comprising an outer sheet and an inner sheet, wherein the inner sheet of the twin sheet assembly is perforated. Leon teaches a helmet configuration with a first layer that is a twin sheet assembly comprising an inner sheet 6 and outer sheet 8 and also teaches the inner sheet is perforated for breathability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Howat to provide the twin sheet assembly comprising an outer sheet and an inner sheet, wherein the inner sheet is perforated to provide breathability between respective helmet layers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ‘342 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Phillips (U.S. 8,615,817). Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach the helmet comprises an energy absorbing layer, wherein an inner surface of the second layer is bonded to the energy absorbing layer by an adhesive layer. Phillips teaches a helmet with an energy absorbing layer 24 adhesively bonded to an inner surface of a second layer 26 as in col.5, lines 51-60, with the adhesive bonding a mechanical fastener known in the art and the layer 24 providing impact absorption via displacement of its internal fluid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Howat to include an energy absorbing layer and an inner surface of the second layer bonded to the energy absorbing layer by an adhesive layer, as Phillips teaches that providing an energy absorbing layer as an inner layer intended to interface with the wearer's head is known in the helmet art, with the energy absorbing layer adhesively bonded to the inner surface of the second layer for secure retention thereto.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ‘342 as applied to claims 1 and 18 and further in view of Nakayama et al. (U.S. 2001/0032351). Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach the second layer comprises recesses and/or through-holes through which portions of the energy absorbing layer extends toward the first layer, the portions of the energy absorbing layer being bonded to the first layer and an outer surface of the second layer locally bends upwards around the recesses and/or through-holes to reduce a separation between an inner surface of the first layer and the outer surface of the second layer, particularly so as to avoid a bleeding of the energy absorbing layer into a volume between the inner and outer surfaces during manufacturing of the energy absorbing layer. Nakayama teaches a helmet 10 as in Figure 5 including a second layer 53 comprising recesses 53a or through holes through which portions of the energy absorbing layer 54 extends toward the first layer. Nakayama teaches that this configuration allows for slip between layers for absorbing a rotational component of a shock force. It's noted that the limitations of claim 20 recite product by process limitations. With regard to the claimed process steps reciting how the product is formed, no additional patentable weight is granted to these steps in that the interpretation of product by process claims is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Howat such that an outer surface of the second layer locally bends upwards around the respective recess and/or through-holes to reduce a separation between an inner surface of the first layer and the outer surface of the second layer, particularly so as to avoid a bleeding of the energy absorbing layer into a volume between the inner and outer surfaces during manufacturing of the energy absorbing layer as these manufacturing steps don't appear result in a distinct helmet product.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ‘342 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Magee (U.S. 2016/0029731). Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Howat doesn't teach the energy absorbing layer and/or the second layer comprises an edge portion having a chamfered or rounded edge to prevent a trailing edge of the first layer from becoming caught on the edge portion when moving relative to the second layer and/or energy absorbing layer over the edge portion. Magee teaches a helmet with a chamfered edge 16 to reduce peeling off of shell 24 as in Figure 3. Modifying the energy absorbing layer and/or the second layer edge portion with a chamfered edge is expected to improve Howat's helmet in the same manner as respective layer edges are not in contact due to the chamfered shape and the chamfered edge distributes an impact along a plurality of surfaces rather than one flat edge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Howat such that the energy absorbing layer and/or the second layer comprises an edge portion having a chamfered or rounded edge to prevent a trailing edge of the first layer from becoming caught on the edge portion when moving relative to the second layer and/or energy absorbing layer over the edge portion as Magee teaches a chamfered helmet edge is known in the art to prevent a peeling off of a layer adjacent to the layer with the chamfered edge.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ‘342 as applied to claims 1 and 2 and further in view of Liu (U.S. 2021/0093035). Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including the reactive layer configured to hold the first layer as the first layer interfaces with the reactive layer. However, Howat doesn't explicitly disclose the reactive layer configured to hold the first layer such that a tangential force required to activate rolling of balls of the reactive layer is about .1kN or such that an energy introduced by the impact force has to exceed 2.5J to activate rolling of the balls. Liu teaches a helmet with a reactive layer in the form of rolling balls held between outer liner 102 and inner liner 20. Liu teaches that the connecting surface 21 of the inner liner 20 has a contacting layer to contact the ball 30 for increasing rolling lubricity or decreasing the frictional resistance and the material of the contacting layer can be selected according to the required lubricity, impact resistance, or frictional resistance. Claim 26 recites the intended function of the reactive layer/balls and doesn't further limit the structure of the helmet and reactive layer/balls. One of ordinary skill could have looked to Liu's teaching that the material of the contacting layer can be selected to achieve a desired frictional resistance and lubricity of the contacting layer to require a particular tangential force to activate rolling of the balls and required energy by the impact force to activate rolling of the balls. Modifying Howat's reactive layer as configured to hold the first layer such that a tangential force required to activate rolling of balls of the reactive layer is about .1kN or such that an energy introduced by the impact force has to exceed 2.5J to activate rolling of the balls is considered obvious as one of ordinary skill could select a weight or composition of the balls and/or a particular material for the first layer to result in the required tangential force and required impact force energy to activate rolling of the balls to provide the helmet with a desired impact protection profile and capability based upon a particular environment in which the helmet is intended to be worn.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ‘342 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Waterspiel (U.S. 10,306,943). Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach a portion of an inner surface of the first layer is bonded to a portion of an outer surface of the second layer. Walterspiel teaches a helmet with a first layer 102 bonded to a second layer 112 as in col.5, lines 64-66. Walterspiel doesn't explicitly disclose the inner surface of the first layer bonded to a portion of an outer surface of the second layer; however, as the second layer is oriented internal to the first layer, a portion of the inner surface of the first layer is necessarily bonded to a portion of an outer surface of the second layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Howat such that a portion of an inner surface of the first layer is bonded to a portion of an outer surface of the second layer as Walterspiel teaches this relationship between the first and second layer is known in the art, particularly as the balls are positioned to roll between the first and second layers.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ‘342 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schimpf (U.S. 2012/0060251). Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach the first layer is connected to the second layer by connectors, the respective connector protruding from an inner surface of the first layer and extending through an associated through-opening of the second layer with an end portion of the connector, the end portion engaging with the second layer to connect the first layer to the second layer wherein the respective connector is configured to break at the impact threshold to release the first layer to the second layer. Schimpf teaches a helmet 6 with a first layer 7 connected to a second layer 8 by connectors 20, the respective connector 20 protruding from an inner surface of the first layer 7 and extending through an associated through- opening of the second layer 8 with an end portion of the connector, the end portion engaging with the second layer 8 to connect the first layer 7 to the second layer 8 wherein the respective connector 20 is configured to break at the impact threshold to release the first layer 7 to the second layer 8 ("The connecting means 20 comprise predetermined breaking points 21, which rupture, for example, during a blow from the front, so that the head-side insert 8 rotates backward, together with the outer shell..”.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Howat’s helmet such that the first layer is connected to the second layer by connectors, the respective connector protruding form an inner surface of the first layer and extending through an associated through-opening of the second layer with an end portion of the connector, the end portion engaging with the second layer to connect the first layer to the second layer and wherein the respective connector is configured to break at the impact threshold to release the first layer to the second layer as Schimpf teaches this configuration is known in the art to assist with impact absorption and distribution.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howat in view of Markison ‘342 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Riina ‘407. Howat discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the first layer is a sacrificial layer configured to smooth out a surface impacting on the helmet to allow the balls to roll on it, wherein the sacrificial layer is configured to be completely or partially released from the helmet during an oblique impact and particularly configured to not translate during the impact relative to the impacting surface. Riina teaches a helmet with a sacrificial layer (col.7, lines 10-13) included on a helmet outer shell layer as a low-friction and easy shear coating or membrane to reduce the mechanical effects of rotational acceleration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Howat’s helmet to provide the first layer as a sacrificial layer as Riina teaches the sacrificial layer is a low-friction, easy shear layer to reduce mechanical effects of rotational acceleration under impact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 107 and 108 are allowed.
Claims 17, 27, and 28 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 remarks have been considered. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has necessitated revised prior art rejections. It is noted that some of the limitations from previously submitted claims 31 and 32 have been added to independent claim 1, including claim amendments to overcome the previously cited rejection under 35 USC 112b.
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732