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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8 and 16-21) in the reply filed on September 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that the alleged inventions are not patentably distinct from one another as combination and subcombination, as the alleged combination of claims 1 and 16 each recite the common feature of “a receiving fastener” similar to the alleged subcombination of claim 9. This is not found persuasive because although claims 1 and 16 each recite a fastening receiver, neither claim 1 nor 16 requires a fastening receiver with a tapered portion disposed between an upper opening and a lower opening as previously stated in the Restriction Requirement.
The traversal is also on the grounds that the Office has not suggested a separate utility of the subcombination and that both examples provided by the Office are head covering apparatuses. This is not found persuasive because the examples of utility for the subcombination provided in the Restriction Requirement are examples of utility by itself or in other combinations as required by MPEP 806.05(c). Indeed, the examples of a pad positionable in another article such as a protective face mask (e.g., for sports or welding) or in a face cradle for a massage table are examples of utility in combinations other than the helmet of Applicant’s claimed combination.
The traversal is also on the grounds that there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. This is not found persuasive because the Restriction Requirement has met at least one of criteria provided by Applicant. More specifically, the Restriction Requirement explicitly states separate classification of each of the identified inventions (i.e., A42B3/127 and A44B17/0005, respectively). Furthermore, although Applicant alleges that the search would not be burdensome due to the presence of some Applicant-identified common claim terms, it is noted that fields of search are not merely limited to keyword searching of terms alone, but further include searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of the Claims
In the reply received on September 11, 2025, Applicant indicated claims 1-8 and 16-21 as reading on the elected invention. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are currently pending in this application with clams 9-15 being withdrawn from further consideration. An action on the merits follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“174” directed to a top end as discussed at least at [0044]
“201” directed to a cheek pad material as discussed at least at [0051]
“12” directed to a disengaged position discussed at least at [0074]
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“2” as seen at least in Fig. 13
The drawings are further objected to because of the following informalities:
In Fig. 1, the discontinuous dashed line (10-10) meant to show the direction and location of the cross sectional view of Fig. 10 should be drawn as a continuous line similar to line (12-12)
In Figs. 7-8, it is unclear what the oblong dashed shape is meant to represent, there seemingly be no related description in the specification
In Fig. 8, it is unclear to which reference character the larger dashed circle is meant to correspond
In Fig. 9, reference character “148” associated with a ramped inner surface seemingly points to some circular structure similar to that of lower bracket (162)
In Fig. 9, top end (150) should be labeled to aid in a clear understanding of Applicant’s invention and as discussed at least at [0062]
In Fig. 12, the lead lines associated with reference characters “116” and “118” are difficult to discern from the cross-hatching
In Figs. 16 and 18-20, it appears that reference character “10” should be replaced with reference character “12” which is directed to a disengaged position as discussed at least at [0074]
In Figs. 15-16, tab (220) should be shown and labeled to aid in a clear understanding of Applicant’s invention and as discussed at least at [0077]
In Fig. 20, the improper exploded view should instead include a bracket or line to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts
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 – Disclosure
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0070], “helmet 10” should read “helmet 100)
At [0081], “l-shaped” should read “L-shaped” (i.e., lower case letter replaced with upper case letter)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 16-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a corresponding projection fastener” at lines 8-9. It is unclear if the limitation is attempting to refer back to a corresponding one of the one or more projecting fasteners previously recited in the claim, or introduce some new structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a corresponding projecting fastener”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the projecting fastener” at line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a corresponding projecting fastener”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the cheek pad material is disposed between the first end and the second end” of the projecting fastener at lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not Applicant is attempting to positively recite the projecting fasteners in the claim. As the one or more projecting fasteners were only ever introduced as part of a functional limitation in claim 1, it is unclear if the projecting fasteners are necessarily required by the claim. As a result, it is further unclear how the positively recited cheek pad material can be further limited relative to the hypothetical structure of the first and second ends of the projecting fastener as recited in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that Applicant first positively recite the one or more projecting fasteners in independent claim 1 from which claim 4 ultimately depends. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above wherein the one or more projecting fasteners are positively recited in claim 1 when applying prior art.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the projecting fastener” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the corresponding projecting fastener” to better agree with Applicant’s established terminology in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 6 further recites the limitation “the receiving fastener” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the corresponding receiving fastener” to better agree with Applicant’s established terminology in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the receiving fastener” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a corresponding receiving fastener” to better agree with Applicant’s established terminology in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the projecting fastener” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the corresponding projecting fastener” to better agree with Applicant’s established terminology in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a front face comprising a first opening configured to engage the projection fastener to retain the cheek pad to the outer shell and a second opening adjacent the first opening” at lines 8-10. Due to the awkward phrasing of the limitation, it is unclear if the cheek pad is retained to the outer shell and a second opening, or if the second opening is being recited as being further comprised by the front face. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a front face comprising a first opening configured to engage the projection fastener to retain the cheek pad to the outer shell, and the front face further comprising a second opening adjacent the first opening”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-8 and 17-21 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 1-8, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0008580 to Mazzarolo et al. (hereinafter “Mazzarolo”), in view of USPN 6,256,797 to Nemoto et al. (hereinafter, “Nemoto”), and in view of US 2018/0035742 to Salvetti et al. (hereinafter, “Salvetti”).
Regarding claim 1, Mazzarolo teaches a helmet (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 1, 17-21, and 25-26; helmet (1); abstract) comprising: an outer shell (outer shell (10)); a cheek pad comprising a cheek pad material having one or more projecting fasteners (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 1 and 17-21; cheek pad (16) comprising cheek pad plate material (20) having projections (22)); and an inner lining disposed within the outer shell, the inner lining comprising one or more receiving fasteners configured to receive the one or more projecting fasteners (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 1 and 17-21; liner (12) within outer shell (10) having receiving seats (24) in plate (30) for receiving corresponding projections (22)), each receiving fastener comprising: an upper opening configured to engage a corresponding projection fastener in a snap-fit arrangement and a lower opening disposed below the upper opening, the lower opening configured to disengage the corresponding projecting fastener from the snap-fit arrangement (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 17-21 and 25-26; each receiving seat (24) as depicted in Fig. 19 includes an upper opening capable of engaging a corresponding projection (22) in a snap-fit arrangement, i.e., Fig. 20, and a lower opening capable of disengaging the corresponding projection (22) from the snap-fit arrangement, i.e., Figs. 25-26).
That said, Mazzarolo is silent to each receiving fastener comprising a ramped inner surface comprising one or more sloped portions and configured to guide the projecting fastener from the snap-fit arrangement.
However, Nemoto, in a related helmet art, is directed to a helmet having looped pull members mounted on inside pads to remove the pads from the helmet (See Nemoto, Figs. 1-5; abstract). More specifically, Nemoto teaches a receiving fastener comprising a ramped inner surface comprising one or more sloped portions and configured to guide the projecting fastener from the snap-fit arrangement (See Nemoto, Figs. 3-5; aperture (39) includes inner removal guide arm (54) having a sloped portion capable of guiding a corresponding stud (37) from a snap-fit arrangement; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to slope the lower portion of the receiving seat of Mazzarolo as disclosed by Nemoto for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, aid a user in selecting disengaging and removing the cheek pad by providing a guide for fastener removal (See Nemoto, Col. 9, lines 60-65).
That said, the projections of Mazzarolo are integrally formed with the plate cheek pad material. Therefore, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto, as discussed above) is silent to the cheek pad material being configured to receive the one or more projecting fasteners.
However, Salvetti, in a related helmet art, is directed to a helmet having a padding element removably constrained to the shell (See Salvetti, Figs. 1-5). More specifically, Salvetti teaches a cheek pad material being configured to receive one or more projecting fasteners (See Salvetti, Figs. 3 and 5; frame material (3) of cheek pad is capable of receiving and retaining male fastener (4a) through a corresponding hole).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to replace the integral design of the projections of the modified helmet of Mazzarolo with the insertably retained design of the projections disclosed by Salvetti for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, allowing for replacement of individual projections when needed, i.e., for repair, instead of requiring replacement of the entire plate, and further since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144(V)(C).
Regarding claim 2, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto and Salvetti, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the upper opening is smaller than the lower opening (See Mazzarolo, Fig. 19; upper opening of receiving seat (24) is smaller than lower opening).
Regarding claim 3, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto and Salvetti, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein each projecting fastener comprises a first end and a second end opposing the first end, the first end being configured to be received within a corresponding receiving fastener (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 17-22; projection (22) includes first end receivable in a corresponding receiving seat (24), and a second end on an opposite side of plate (20) as discussed in the modification above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto and Salvetti, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 3 above) further teaches wherein the cheek pad material is disposed between the first end and the second end (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 17-22; plate (20) is disposed between first and second ends of projection (22) as discussed in the modification above, wherein the projection is modified to extend through and be retained within a hole in the plate similar to male fastener (4a) depicted in Fig. 5 of Salvetti).
Regarding claim 5, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto and Salvetti, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 3 above) further teaches wherein the first end is configured to pass through the lower opening of the corresponding receiving fastener but not the upper opening of the corresponding receiving fastener (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 17-22 and 25-26; first end of projection (22) is capable of passing through larger, lower opening of receiving seat (24) but not the smaller, upper opening of receiving seat (24)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto and Salvetti, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 3 above) further teaches wherein each projecting fastener comprises a stem connecting the first end and the second end (See Mazzarolo, Fig. 20; stem of projection (22) extending between and connecting first and second ends of projection (22) as discussed in the modification above), and wherein at least a portion of the stem extends beyond a front face of the corresponding receiving fastener when the projecting fastener is in the snap-fit arrangement with the receiving fastener (See Mazzarolo, Fig. 20; stem extends beyond a front face of plate (20) at least in direction receiving seat (24) when projection (22) is in snap-fit arrangement with receiving seat (24)).
Regarding claim 7, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto and Salvetti, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein at least one sloped portion in the one or more sloped portions is at an angle from an axis corresponding to a front face of the receiving fastener (See Nemoto, Fig. 4; removal guide arm (54) has sloped angle as applied to the lower portion of the receiving seat of Mazzarolo as discussed in the modification above).
That said, although the sloped angle depicted in Fig. 4 of Nemoto appears to be between 30 degrees and 60 degrees (See annotated portion of Fig. 4 of Nemoto below; sloped portion is about 45° from front face), Nemoto does not explicitly state an angle measurement.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated portion of Fig. 4 of Nemoto
However, it would have at least been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to make the angle of the sloped portion in the modified helmet of Mazzarolo be about 45° in order to match the depicted structure provided by Nemoto in Fig. 4, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144(II)(A).
Regarding claim 8, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto and Salvetti, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the cheek pad material comprises an opening, and wherein the projecting fastener is configured to be disposed through the opening (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 17-22; plate (20), as modified by Salvetti as discussed above, includes a hole through which the separate projection (22) is capable of extending and being retained similar to male fastener (4a) depicted in Fig. 5 of Salvetti).
Claims 16-21, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto.
Regarding claim 16, Mazzarolo teaches a helmet (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 1, 17-21, and 25-26; helmet (1); abstract) comprising: an outer shell (outer shell (10)); a cheek pad comprising a cheek pad material (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 1 and 17-21; cheek pad (16) comprising cheek pad plate material (20)); a projecting fastener configured to selectively retain the cheek pad material to the outer shell (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 17-21 and 25-26; projection (22) capable of retaining plate (20) to outer shell (10)); and a receiving fastener configured to receive the projecting fastener, the receiving fastener comprising: a front face comprising a first opening configured to engage the projecting fastener to retain the cheek pad to the outer shell and a second opening adjacent the first opening, the second opening configured to disengage the projecting fastener (See Mazzarolo, Figs. 17-21 and 25-26; receiving seat (24) capable of receiving corresponding projection (22); receiving seat (24) has front face having an upper, first opening capable of engaging projection (22) to retain check pad (16) to outer shell (10), and lower, second opening adjacent first opening and capable of disengaging projection (22); Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
That said, Mazzarolo is silent to the receiving fastener comprising a ramped inner surface, the ramped inner surface comprising a sloped portion disposed behind the second opening, the sloped portion configured to guide the projecting fastener from the first opening to the second opening.
However, Nemoto, in a related helmet art, is directed to a helmet having looped pull members mounted on inside pads to remove the pads from the helmet (See Nemoto, Figs. 1-5; abstract). More specifically, Nemoto teaches a receiving fastener comprising a ramped inner surface, the ramped inner surface comprising a sloped portion disposed behind the second opening, the sloped portion configured to guide the projecting fastener from the first opening to the second opening (See Nemoto, Figs. 3-5; aperture (39) includes inner removal guide arm (54) having a sloped portion behind lower opening and capable of guiding a corresponding stud (37) to upper opening; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to slope the lower portion of the receiving seat of Mazzarolo as disclosed by Nemoto for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, aid a user in selecting disengaging and removing the cheek pad by providing a guide for fastener removal (See Nemoto, Col. 9, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 17, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto, as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) further teaches wherein the front face comprises a tapered portion extending into the first opening and the second opening (See Mazzarolo, Fig. 19; receiving seat (34) on front face of plate (20) includes retention edge (34) which extends into and between the first and second openings and tapers in width from the lower, second opening to the upper, first opening).
Regarding claim 18, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto, as discussed with respect to claims 16-17 above) further teaches wherein the tapered portion is configured to retain the projecting fastener in the first opening (See Mazzarolo, Fig. 19; tapered retention edge (34) is capable of retaining projection (22) in upper, first opening; [0101]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 19, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto, as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) further teaches wherein the ramped inner surface further comprises: a top end; and a bottom end opposing the top end, the ramped inner surface being coupled to the front face at the top end and the bottom end (See annotated Fig. 26 of Mazzarolo below; inner surface of receiving seat (24) includes top end and bottom end at which points the inner surface is coupled to the front face; inner surface is ramped as a result of the modification with Nemoto discussed above wherein the lower portion is sloped similar to Fig. 4 of Nemoto).
PNG
media_image2.png
485
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 26 of Mazzarolo
Regarding claim 20, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto, as discussed with respect to claims 16 and 19 above) further teaches wherein the sloped portion extends from the bottom end of the ramped inner surface to a portion of the ramped inner surface below the top end (See Nemoto, Fig. 4; sloped portion of guiding arm extends from a bottom end to a portion below a top end of the inner surface; the lower portion of the inner surface of the receiving seat of Mazzarolo, modified to be sloped as discussed above, would similarly extend from a bottom end to a portion below the top end in the modified helmet).
Regarding claim 21, the modified helmet of Mazzarolo (i.e., Mazzarolo in view of Nemoto, as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) further teaches wherein the sloped portion of the ramped inner surface is at an angle from an axis corresponding to the front face (See Nemoto, Fig. 4; removal guide arm (54) has sloped angle as applied to the lower portion of the receiving seat of Mazzarolo as discussed in the modification above).
That said, although the sloped angle depicted in Fig. 4 of Nemoto appears to be between 40 degrees and 50 degrees (See annotated portion of Fig. 4 of Nemoto below; sloped portion is about 45° from front face), Nemoto does not explicitly state an angle measurement.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated portion of Fig. 4 of Nemoto
However, it would have at least been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to make the angle of the sloped portion in the modified helmet of Mazzarolo be about 45° in order to match the depicted structure provided by Nemoto in Fig. 4, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144(II)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. US 2010/0095437 to Ikeda; and US 2020/0138142 to Kim et al. are each directed to protective helmets having removable padding elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, CLINTON T 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights