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 .
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 limitations “a first layer fully covering the outer side”, “a second layer fully covering the first layer”, “a third layer fully covering the second layer” in claims 1 and claim 17 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.
Specification
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:
The specification does not describe “a first layer fully covering the outer side”, “a second layer fully covering the first layer”, “a third layer fully covering the second layer” in claims 1 and 17.
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 1, 3-5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a first layer fully covering the outer side”, “a second layer fully covering the first layer”, “a third layer fully covering the second layer”, which are not shown in the drawings and the specification does not describe the limitations. Fig. 2 only shows a cross section view of a portion of the liner. The Applicant pointed to page 4, line 28-page5, line 19 for the support for the limitation, however, the specification only describes “the liner 28 may further comprise a first layer 34 that is on the outer side 30…A second layer 36 of the liner 28 is coupled to the first layer 34…A third layer 42 of the liner 28 is coupled to the second layer 36”. Therefore claims 1 and 17 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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 1, 3-5 and 7-17 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a second layer fully covering the first layer”. It is unclear how the second layer can fully cover the first cover as the second layer is only coupled to the inner side of the first layer.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a third layer fully covering the second layer”. It is unclear how the third layer can fully cover the second layer as the third layer is only coupled to the inner side of the second layer. Further fig. 4 shows the third layer does not fully cover the inner side of the second layer.
For the benefit of applying art, the limitations are interpreted that the liner has a portion in which a portion of the first layer fully covers a portion of the outer side, a portion of the second layer fully covers a portion of the first layer, and a portion of third layer fully covers a portion of the second layer.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3 and 10 are rejected to the degree of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold (US 2013/0283506) in view of Williams (US 2019/0125025).
Regarding claim 1, Archbold teaches a protective headgear assembly (fig. 3) comprising:
a helmet shell (fig. 3, shell 3) comprising a peripheral wall having an internal surface and an external surface (fig. 1);
a liner (fig. 3, liners 2,4,5 which have foam layer, bladder 1 and pad 6) being coupled to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell (fig. 1), the liner having an outer side and an inner side, the outer side being positioned adjacent to the internal surface of the peripheral wall (fig.1), the inner side being configured to cover a head of a user when the user is wearing the helmet shell (fig. 1) wherein the liner is configured to absorb a force of an impact to the external surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell whereby the liner is configured to inhibit the force of the impact from injuring the user (para. [0013]), the liner further comprising:
a first layer (fig. 1, foam layer of liner 2) fully covering the outer side (annotated fig. 1 below, a portion of the first layer fully covers a portion of the outer side), the first layer being a multi-density polymer cushioning material (para. [0035], liner 2 comprising existing standard EPS (expanded polystyrene) and foamed polyurethane (PU), therefore, the liner 2 comprising a multi-density polymer cushioning material);
a second layer (fig. 1, bladder 1) fully covering the first layer (annotated fig. 1 below, a portion of the second layer fully covers a portion of the first layer), the second layer being an air blader having an interior space being filled with a gas (para. [0023]); and
a third layer (fig. 1, para. [0022], foam pad 6) fully covering the second layer (annotated fig. 1 below, a portion of third layer fully covers a portion of the second layer), the third layer being on the inner side.
Archbold does not teach the third layer comprising a viscoelastic rubber.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Williams teaches the impact absorbing layer comprising a viscoelastic rubber material (para. [0011], [0041], claim 3) being configured to absorb the force of the impact and disperse energy from the force of the impact across the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the third layer of Archbold with a viscoelastic rubber of Williams for the benefit of absorbing energy from impacts and vibrations by spreading them laterally (Williams, abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
331
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Archbold-Williams teaches the gas has a pressure (Archbold, para. [0026], an initial pressure), the air bladder comprising a plastic material (Archbold, para. [0023], the bladder is made of a top layer and a bottom layer of an inelastic fluid impermeable polymer material such as thermoplastic sheets) being nonporous wherein the plastic material is configured to inhibit the gas from leaking out of the air bladder thereby maintaining the pressure of gas within the air bladder (Archbold, para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure Archbold-Williams teaches an air valve (Archbold, fig. 2, valve 12) being coupled to the second layer of the liner, the air valve being fluidically coupled to the interior space of the air bladder wherein the air valve facilitates adding the gas to the interior space (Archbold, para. [0023]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold (US 2013/0283506) and Williams (US 2019/0125025), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ross (US 5181279) and Ben Ezra (US 2013/0167290).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Archbold-Williams teaches the peripheral wall has a lower edge defining an opening into the helmet shell, the peripheral wall having a back side (Archbold, fig. 1).
The modified structure Archbold-Williams does not teach the protective headgear assembly further comprising a display panel being coupled to the periphery wall of the helmet shell.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ross teaches the protective headgear assembly further comprising a display panel (fig. 5, display 22) being coupled to the periphery wall of the helmet shell (fig. 5, display 22 joins the helmet shell by wire and sensor 21), the display panel being electrically couped to the pneumatic chamber (14) of the liner, the display panel displaying the pressure of the gas within the interior space of the air bladder (column 3, lines 55-60), the display panel being coupled to the shell portion adjacent to the lower edge of the peripheral wall (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams with a display panel as taught by Ross for the benefit of providing illustration of pressure contained within the pneumatic chamber (Ross, column 3, lines 55-60).
The modified structure Archbold-Williams-Ross does not teach the display panel positioned on the back side of the peripheral wall.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ben Ezra teaches the display panel (fig. 12, display 1020) positioned on the back side of the peripheral wall (fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the display of the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Ross to be positioned on the back side of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell as taught by Ben Ezra so that the display system can be effectively and quickly activated by the pressure sensors on the helmet (Ben Ezra, para. [0012]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold (US 2013/0283506) and Williams (US 2019/0125025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halldin (US 2018/0360154).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure Archbold-Williams does not teach the gas comprises nitrogen.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Halldin teaches the gas comprises nitrogen (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams with nitrogen gas because nitrogen is a non-reactive, non-flammable gas, making it effective in cushioning by airbag systems.
Claims 7-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold (US 2013/0283506) and Williams (US 2019/0125025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jessie (US 2003/0200598).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Archbold-Williams does not teach a coupler releasably attaching the outer side of the liner to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jessie teaches a coupler releasably attaching the outer side of the liner to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell (fig. 1, para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams with a coupler releasably attaching the outer side of the liner to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell as taught by Jessie for the benefit of providing easy removal and attachment of the liner to the inner surfaces of the helmet shell (Jessie, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Jessie does not teach the coupler comprising a first mating member and a second mating member.
However, Jessie teaches the coupler comprising a first mating member being attached to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell; and a second mating member being releasably engageable with the first mating member, the second mating member being attached to the outer side of the liner, the second mating member being alignable with the first mating member when the liner is positioned within the helmet shell (fig. 1, para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Jessie with a first mating member and a second mating member as taught by Jessie for the benefit of providing easy removal and attachment of the liner to the inner surfaces of the helmet shell (Jessie, abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Jessie does not teach each of the first mating member and the second mating member comprises a hook and loop material.
However, Jessie teaches each of the first mating member and the second mating member comprises a hook and loop material (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Jessie with the teaching that each of the first mating member and the second mating member comprises a hook and loop material as taught by Jessie for the benefit of providing easy removal and attachment of the liner to the inner surfaces of the helmet shell (Jessie, abstract).
Regarding claim 16, the modified structure Archbold-Williams does not teach the liner is removably coupled to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell.
However, Jessie teaches the liner is removably coupled to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell (fig. 1, para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams with the teaching that the liner is removably coupled to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell as taught by Jessie for the benefit of providing easy removal and attachment of the liner to the inner surfaces of the helmet shell (Jessie, abstract).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold (US 2013/0283506) and Williams (US 2019/0125025), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Vanhoutin (US 2020/0275721).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure Archbold-Williams teaches the peripheral wall has a lower edge defining an opening into the helmet shell (Archbold, fig. 1).
The modified structure Archbold-Williams does not clearly teach the air valve being positioned proximate to the lower edge of the peripheral wall wherein the air valve is configured to be accessible to the user when the liner is positioned within the helmet shell.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vanhoutin teaches the air valve (fig. 1, valves 31, 19) being positioned proximate to the lower edge of the peripheral wall (fig. 20) wherein the air valve is configured to be accessible to the user when the liner is positioned within the helmet shell (fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the valve of the modified structure Archbold-Williams being positioned proximate to the lower edge of the peripheral wall as suggested by Vanhoutin for the benefit of providing an access by user’s fingers to the valve in use (Vanhoutin, para. [0032]) so that the valves are easily operable by the user, simply by reaching behind to the rear of the helmet (Vanhoutin, para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Archbold-Williams does not teach a fastener releasably coupling the air valve to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell.
However, Vanhoutin teaches a fastener (figs. 20-21, para. [0038]) releasably coupling the air valve to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams with a fastener releasably coupling the air valve to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell as taught by Vanhoutin for the benefit of securing the liner to the helmet shell (Vanhoutin, para. [0038]) and enabling the user to conveniently adjust the fitment the liner as desired.
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Vanhoutin does not teach the fastener comprising a primary fastening portion and a secondary fastening portion as in claim 13.
However, Vanhoutin teaches the fastener comprising: a primary fastening portion being attached to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell; a secondary fastening portion being releasably couplable with the primary fastening portion, the secondary fastening portion being attached to the air valve, the secondary fastening portion being alignable with the first fastening portion when the liner is positioned within the helmet shell (figs. 20-21, para. [0038], the liner is secured with respect to the shell holes by hook-and-loop fastener material disposed about pump button 31 and valve cap 19).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Vanhoutin with the fastener comprising a primary fastening portion and a secondary fastening portion as taught by Vanhoutin for the benefit of securing the liner to the helmet shell (Vanhoutin, para. [0038]) and enabling the user to conveniently adjust the fitment the liner as desired.
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Vanhoutin does not teach each of the primary fastening portion and the secondary fastening portion comprises a hook and loop material.
However, Vanhoutin teaches each of the primary fastening portion and the secondary fastening portion comprises a hook and loop material (para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Vanhoutin with a hook and loop material as taught by Vanhoutin for the benefit of securing the liner to the helmet shell (Vanhoutin, para. [0038]) and enabling the user to conveniently adjust the fitment the liner as desired.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold (US 2013/0283506) and Williams (US 2019/0125025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ross (US 5181279).
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure Archbold-Williams does not teach a display panel being coupled to the periphery wall of the helmet shell.
However, Ross teaches a display panel (fig. 5, display 22) being coupled to the periphery wall of the helmet shell (fig. 5, display 22 joins the helmet shell by wire and sensor 21), the display panel being electrically coupled to the second layer of the liner, the display panel displaying a pressure of gas within the interior space of the air bladder (column 3, lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams with a display panel as taught by Ross for the benefit of providing illustration of pressure contained within the pneumatic chamber (Ross, column 3, lines 55-60).
Claim 17 is rejected to the degree of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archbold (US 2013/0283506) in view of Williams (US 2019/0125025), Halldin (US 2018/0360154), Jessie (US 2003/0200598), Vanhoutin (US 2020/0275721), Ross (US 5181279) and Ben Ezra (US 2013/0167290).
Regarding claim 17, Archbold teaches a protective headgear assembly (fig. 3) comprising:
a helmet shell (fig. 3, shell 3) comprising a peripheral wall having an internal surface and an external surface (fig. 1); the peripheral wall having a lower edge defining an opening into the helmet shell, the peripheral wall having a front side and a back side (fig. 1);
a liner (fig. 3, liners 2,4,5 which have foam layer, bladder 1 and pad 6) being coupled to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell (fig. 1), the liner having an outer side and an inner side, the outer side being positioned adjacent to the internal surface of the peripheral wall (fig.1), the inner side being configured to cover a head of a user when the user is wearing the helmet shell (fig. 1), the liner covering the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell (fig. 1) wherein the liner is configured to absorb a force of an impact to the external surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell as the force of the impact travels from the external surface through the liner whereby the liner is configured to inhibit the force of the impact from injuring the user (para. [0002], [0013]), the liner further comprising:
a first layer (fig. 1, foam layer of liner 2) being on the outer side, the first layer comprising a multi-density polymer cushioning material (para. [0035], liner 2 comprising existing standard EPS (expanded polystyrene) and foamed polyurethane (PU), therefore, the liner 2 comprising a multi-density polymer cushioning material);
a second layer (fig. 1, bladder 1) fully covering the first layer (annotated fig. 1 above, a portion of the second layer fully covers a portion of the first layer), the second layer being an air blader having an interior space being filled with a gas (para. [0023]), the gas having a pressure (para. [0026], an initial pressure), the air bladder comprising a plastic material (para. [0023], the bladder is made of a top layer and a bottom layer of an inelastic fluid impermeable polymer material such as thermoplastic sheets) being nonporous wherein the plastic material is configured to inhibit the gas from leaking out of the air bladder (para. [0026]); and
a third layer (fig. 1, para. [0022], foam pad 6) fully covering the second layer (annotated fig. 1 above, a portion of the third layer fully covers a portion of the second layer), the third layer being on the inner side;
an air valve (fig. 2, valve 12) being coupled to the second layer of the liner, the air valve being fluidically coupled to the interior space of the air bladder wherein the air valve facilitates adding the gas to the interior space (para. [0023]).
Archbold does not teach the third layer comprising a viscoelastic rubber.
However, Williams teaches the impact absorbing layer comprising a viscoelastic rubber material, the viscoelastic rubber material is configured to absorb the force of the impact and disperse energy from the force of the impact across the layer (para. [0011], [0041], claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the third layer of Archbold with a viscoelastic rubber of Williams for the benefit of absorbing energy from impacts and vibrations by spreading them laterally (Williams, abstract).
The modified structure Archbold-Williams does not teach the gas comprises nitrogen.
However, Halldin teaches the gas comprises nitrogen (para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams with nitrogen gas because nitrogen is a non-reactive, non-flammable gas, making it effective in cushioning by airbag systems.
The modified structure Archbold-Williams-Halldin does not teach a coupler releasably attaching the outer side of the liner to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell.
However, Jessie teaches a coupler releasably attaching the outer side of the liner to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell (fig. 1, para. [0022]), the coupler comprising a first mating member being attached to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell; and a second mating member being releasably engageable with the first mating member, the second mating member being attached to the outer side of the liner, the second mating member being alignable with the first mating member when the liner is positioned within the helmet shell (fig. 1, para. [0022]), wherein each of the first mating member and the second mating member comprises a hook and loop material (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Halldin with a coupler releasably attaching the outer side of the liner to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell as taught by Jessie for the benefit of providing easy removal and attachment of the liner to the inner surfaces of the helmet shell (Jessie, abstract).
The modified structure Archbold-Williams-Halldin-Jessie does not clearly teach the air valve being positioned proximate to the lower edge of the peripheral wall wherein the air valve is configured to be accessible to the user when the liner is positioned within the helmet shell and a fastener releasably coupling the air valve to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell.
However, Vanhoutin teaches the air valve (fig. 1, valves 31, 19) being positioned proximate to the lower edge of the peripheral wall (fig. 20) wherein the air valve is configured to be accessible to the user when the liner is positioned within the helmet shell (fig. 17); a fastener (figs. 20-21, para. [0038]) releasably coupling the air valve to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell; the fastener comprising: a primary fastening portion being attached to the internal surface of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell; a secondary fastening portion being releasably couplable with the primary fastening portion, the secondary fastening portion being attached to the air valve, the secondary fastening portion being alignable with the first fastening portion when the liner is positioned within the helmet shell (figs. 20-21, para. [0038], the liner is secured with respect to the shell holes by hook-and-loop fastener material disposed about pump button 31 and valve cap 19); each of the primary fastening portion and the secondary fastening portion comprises a hook and loop material (para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Halldin-Jessie with the air valve with releasable fasteners as suggested by Vanhoutin for the benefit of providing an access by user’s fingers to the valve in use (Vanhoutin, para. [0032]) so that the valves are easily operable by the user, simply by reaching behind to the rear of the helmet (Vanhoutin, para. [0038]) and securing the liner to the helmet shell (Vanhoutin, para. [0038]) and enabling the user to conveniently adjust the fitment the liner as desired.
The modified structure Archbold-Williams-Halldin-Jessie-Vanhoutin does not teach a display panel being coupled to the periphery wall of the helmet shell.
However, Ross teaches a display panel (fig. 5, display 22) being coupled to the periphery wall of the helmet shell (fig. 5, display 22 joins the helmet shell by wire and sensor 21), the display panel being electrically couped to the pneumatic chamber (14) of the liner, the display panel displaying the pressure of the gas within the interior space of the air bladder (column 3, lines 55-60), the display panel being coupled to the shell portion adjacent to the lower edge of the peripheral wall (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Halldin-Jessie-Vanhoutin with a display panel as taught by Ross for the benefit of providing illustration of pressure contained within the pneumatic chamber (Ross, column 3, lines 55-60).
The modified structure Archbold-Williams- Halldin-Jessie-Vanhoutin-Ross does not teach the display panel positioned on the back side of the peripheral wall.
However, Ben Ezra teaches the display panel (fig. 12, display 1020) positioned on the back side of the peripheral wall (fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the display of the modified structure Archbold-Williams-Halldin-Jessie-Vanhoutin-Ross to be positioned on the back side of the peripheral wall of the helmet shell as taught by Ben Ezra so that the display system can be effectively and quickly activated by the pressure sensors on the helmet (Ben Ezra, para. [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07/15/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 07/15/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
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 UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732