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 4/29/2026 has been received and reviewed. Claims 1, 3, 12, and 16 are amended. Claims 1-23 are pending, with claims 22 and 23 withdrawn as non-elected.
Specification
The specification of 9/10/2024 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 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 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 § 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, 14 and 15 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 first and second recesses (portions of shell as in Figures 6 and 7 defining cutouts 14a,b) positioned on opposing sides of the exterior shell 2 (cross-sectional axis P of the shell defines opposing sides as in Figures 6 and 7), 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 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.
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 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 a 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.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basson ‘057 in view of Durham et al. (Durham, U.S. 2017/0318893). Basson discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
For claim 16, Basson teaches a helmet comprising: an exterior shell 2 comprising: a rounded dome portion (shown in all drawings and the shell disclosed as corresponding to the user’s skull), 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. However, Basson doesn’t teach a chin bar configured to wrap around a front half of the helmet. Durham teaches it’s known to provide a protective helmet 10 with a chin bar 100 configured to wrap around a front half of the helmet 10, and the chinbar is configured to absorb impact energy. 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 protective helmet to provide a chinbar configured to wrap around a front half of the helmet as taught by Durham, to protect the chin region of the wearer’s face from an impact.
For claim 17, Basson teaches the modified 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 modified 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 modified 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 modified 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 modified 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-8, 11, and 12 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 and the claim rejections are revised as necessitated by the claim amendments.
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
Prosecution Insights