Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/593,821

HELMET WITH IMPACT STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 01, 2024
Examiner
MORAN, KATHERINE M
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Smith Sport Optics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
594 granted / 1106 resolved
-16.3% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1150
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1106 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . A power of attorney is on file for this application, received 3/1/24. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-21 in the reply filed on 9/26/25 is acknowledged. Claims 22 and 23 are withdrawn as non-elected. The IDS of 9/12/25 is also acknowledged. Specification The substitute specification of 9/10/24 is accepted for examination purposes. 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 3 recites the plurality of cutouts define a plurality of crushable features configured to plastically deform or break upon contact with an object at a threshold impact force. Claim 18 recites a trim member; however, the specification discloses trim portion. Drawings The replacement drawings (17 pgs) were received on 9/26/25. These drawings are entered for examination purposes. 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 impact structure defining a plurality of cutouts of claim 2 and the plurality of cutouts define a plurality of crushable features configured to plastically deform or break upon contact with an object at a threshold impact force as in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 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. Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “the plurality of cutouts”. It appears that claim 3 should depend from claim 2 and is interpreted accordingly. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Basson et al. (Basson, FR 2729057). Basson discloses the invention as claimed. Basson teaches a helmet 1 comprising: an exterior shell 2 comprising: an inner surface; an outer surface; and a lower perimeter edge 12 adjoining the inner surface and the outer surface, the lower perimeter edge 12 defining a recess (portion of shell as in Figures 6 and 7 defining the plurality of cutouts 13,14a,14b) positioned on each side of the exterior shell 2; an interior liner 26 positioned along the inner surface of the exterior shell 2; and an impact structure 22 associated with each recess and positioned at least partially below the interior liner 26 and the exterior shell 2, wherein the impact structure 22 comprises a contact interface positioned to abut the interior liner 26 as shown in Figure 4. For claim 2, Basso teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the impact structure 22 defines a plurality of cutouts 13,14a,14b (see Figure 3 and disclosure describing “cutouts 13,14a,14b”). For claim 4, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the impact structure defines a plurality of thru-slots (disclosure uses “slots and cutouts” 13,14a,14b interchangeably). For claim 5, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the impact structure 22 comprises a body portion defining a channel 13 extending longitudinally through the body portion. For claim 9, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the impact structure 22 associated with each recess is integrally connected to each other to form a single, contiguous impact structure by extending at least forward or backward along a portion of the lower perimeter edge beyond the recess positioned on each side of the exterior shell as Figure 1 shows a side of the shell 2 with the impact structure extending forward along a portion of the lower perimeter edge beyond the recess positioned on that side of the shell 2 and the opposing side. For claim 10, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 9, wherein the single, contiguous impact structure 22 extends along an entirety of the lower perimeter edge. For claim 14, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the contact interface of the impact structure 22 is devoid of attachment to the interior liner 26 as the impact structure 22 is not attached to the interior liner 26. For claim 15, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the impact structure 22 is attached to at least one of the lower perimeter edge 12 or the outer surface of the exterior shell 2. For claim 16, teaches a helmet comprising: an exterior shell 2 comprising: an inner surface; an outer surface; and a lower perimeter edge (shown in Figure 8) adjoining the inner surface and the outer surface; an interior liner 4 positioned along the inner surface of the exterior shell 2 (the disclosure states “The protective helmet shown by way of example in FIGS. 1 to 9, …with an internal padding commonly called cap (4))”; and an impact structure 17 extending along at least a first portion of the lower perimeter edge and positioned at least partially below the interior liner 4 and the exterior shell 2, wherein the impact structure 17 is positioned to abut the interior liner 4. For claim 17, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 16, wherein the impact structure 17 extends along an entirety of the lower perimeter edge as the impact structure extends across the entirety of the lower perimeter edge and then laterally forward by lateral extensions 171,172 along the lower edge 12. For claim 18, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 16, further comprising a trim member 171,172 extending along at least a second portion of the lower perimeter edge different from the first portion of the lower perimeter edge (second portion of trim member 171 at the side edges 11a,b is different from the first portion with impact structure 17 at the lower perimeter edge at the rear of the shell 2). For claim 19, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 18, wherein: the first portion of the lower perimeter edge corresponds to a back half of the helmet; and the second portion including trim 171,172 of the lower perimeter edge corresponds to a front half of the helmet. For claim 20, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 19, wherein the first portion of the lower perimeter edge is raised relative to the second portion of the lower perimeter edge as Figures 8 and 9 show the first portion of the lower perimeter edge with impact structure 17 raised relative to the second portion including trim 171,172. For claim 21, Basson teaches the helmet of claim 16, wherein the impact structure 17 is attached to at least one of the lower perimeter edge or the outer surface of the exterior shell. 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basson in view of Guo (TW M625362/110208699 U). Basson discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Basson doesn’t teach the impact structure comprises one of polyvinyl chloride or thermoplastic polyurethane. Guo teaches that it’s known in the prior art of helmets to include an similarly oriented edge strip made of polyvinyl chloride as having a considerable degree of softness and flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Basson’s impact structure to form from polyvinyl chloride as Guo teaches that it’s known in the helmet art to form an impact structure from polyvinyl chloride as providing a degree of flexibility. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-8, 11, and 12 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 as the prior art doesn’t teach or suggest the structural . Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588720
IMPACT PROTECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588719
CHEST PROTECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588728
Hard Hat Communication System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575614
WAISTBAND WITH PATTERNED GRIPPING MEMBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12550957
UTILITY GLOVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+24.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1106 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month