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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Claims 77-90 and 92-97, filed March 26, 2024, which are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 1, 115 (securement strap) is pointing to a connection portion and 115a (strap connection portion) is pointing to a strap and it appears these should be switched;
Figs. 2 and 6C shows multiple separate parts but no bracket or connection line is drawn to indicate how all parts are within the respective figure.
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 use of the term “Kevlar” (paras. 0010, 0013, 0195, 0248, and 0270), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term, for example, “KEVLAR®”.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 90 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 90 should recite, “wherein: first and second ends of the upstand taper in height
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 77, 81-83, 85, 87-89, and 96 (and claims 78-80, 84, 86, 90, 92-95, and 97 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 77 is indefinite as it recites, “A connection system for connection of a visor to a helmet, the connection system comprising… and a female connection part positioned on the helmet”. As the connection system is “for connection of a visor to a helmet”, but a structure of the connection system is “on the helmet”, it is unclear if the helmet is a required part of the connection system or if the female connection part is configured to be positioned on the helmet. In other words, it is unclear if infringement would occur if the connection system includes a female connection part, but not a helmet. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the system to require the helmet and respectfully suggests amending to recite, “A connection system for connection of a visor to a helmet, the connection system comprising: the helmet, an upstand,… and a female connection part positioned on the helmet”.
Claim 81 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the male connection part is provided as an extension from the flange.” As claim 77 recites, “the flange comprising a male connection part”, it is unclear how the male connection part is both part of the flange and extends from the flange.
Claim 82 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the flange comprises one or more flange recesses or apertures to receive one or more respective separate male connection parts that are provided as a separate component part(s)”. It is unclear if “one or more separate male connection parts” is referring to the male connection part recited in claim 77 and if so, it is unclear how the flange comprises the male connection part and yet the male connection part is a separate component, and it is unclear if Applicant is now claiming that the male connection part is a plurality of male connection parts.
Claim 83 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the female connection part is positioned as a corresponding helmet recess or helmet void on or of the helmet, the helmet recess or helmet void for receiving or accepting the male connection part.” It is unclear what is meant by “the female connection part is positioned as” as the remaining part of the claim does not indicate a position, but instead a structure. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein the female connection part is a recess or
Claim 85 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the flange extends substantially about a front circumference of a helmet opening of the helmet.” First, as a circumference is a boundary of a circle, it is unclear as to what is included by a front circumference of a helmet opening. Further, as a front circumference is indefinite, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much of the front circumference of a helmet opening the flange can extend and be considered “substantially” about.
Claim 87 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the visor comprises one or more reinforcements or support ribs positioned between a visor portion of the visor and a flange portion of the visor.” As claim 77 recites the connection system is “for connection of a visor to a helmet”, but claim 87 claims structure of the visor, it is unclear if the visor is a required part of the connection system. Further, as the flange was not previously recited as part of the visor, it is unclear if claim 87 now requires the flange to be part of the visor. Further, it is unclear if “a flange portion” is referring to the flange recited in claim 77 or to a different structure. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the system to require the visor and for the flange to be a part of the visor and respectfully suggests amending claim 77 to make this clear.
Claim 88 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the upstand is part of the visor and extends about an outer surface of the helmet to provide the second visor support surface.” As claim 77 recites the connection system is “for connection of a visor to a helmet”, but claim 88 claims the upstand is part of the visor, it is unclear if the visor is a required part of the connection system. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the system to require the visor and for the flange to be a part of the visor and respectfully suggests amending claim 77 to make this clear.
Claim 89 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the upstand substantially engages with an edge the perimeter of the helmet, when the visor is connected to the helmet.” As claim 77 recites, “the upstand configured to engage a perimeter of the helmet” (functional limitation) and now the claim 89 positively recites the upstand substantially engaging with an edge of the perimeter of the helmet, it is unclear if it is now required for the upstand to engage the helmet or if claim 89 simply means the upstand is configured to substantially engage with an edge of the perimeter. Further, as claim 77 recites the connection system is “for connection of a visor to a helmet”, but claim 89 claims the visor is connected to the helmet, it is unclear if the visor is a required part of the connection system. Finally, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much the upstand needs to engage with an edge of a perimeter to be included or excluded as “substantially engages”. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the system to require the visor and for upstand to engage with an edge of the perimeter of the helmet and respectfully suggests amending claim 77 to make this clear.
Claim 96 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the visor is configured to break away or disconnect by moving substantially upwards and backwards in relation to the helmet, or by moving substantially downwards and outwards in relation to the helmet, or in a twist to a left or a right in relation to the helmet.” It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain to any requisite degree what is included or excluded by “substantially upwards and backwards” and “substantially downwards and outwards”. In other words, how much can a movement deviate from being upward and backward and still be considered “substantially upwards and backwards”.
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.
Claim(s) 77-86, 88-89, and 92-97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Austin (US 2853708).
Regarding claim 77, Austin discloses a connection system (Figs. 1-5) for connection of a visor (4) to a helmet (2), the connection system comprising: an upstand (10, see Figs. 5), the upstand configured to engage a perimeter of the helmet (as can be understood from Figs. 1 and 5), a flange (3/12, best seen in Fig. 2) configured to engage an underside of the perimeter of the helmet (via at least 16/18 extending into 32), the flange comprising a male connection part (16/18), the male connection part comprising one or more lugs (as seen in Fig. 2, 16/18 are projections used to hold or support the visor on the helmet), and a female connection part (channels 32) positioned on the helmet (as seen in Fig. 2), the female connection part comprising one or more recesses or voids (described as channels) to receive the one or more lugs of the male connection part to form a two-part connection mechanism (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 3, lines 68-75), wherein the flange provides a first visor support surface, and wherein the upstand provides a second visor support surface (as can be seen in Fig. 5, the flange and the upstand are different surface that support the visor on the helmet).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the system, there would be a reasonable expectation for the system to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 78, Austin discloses wherein the first visor support surface and the second visor support surface are configured such that the visor may break away or disconnect from the helmet during an impact (as understood from col. 4, lines 40-17 when the brim can be released from the crown with pressure).
Regarding claim 79, Austin discloses wherein the first visor support surface, the second visor support surface, and the one or more lugs are configured such that the visor may break away or disconnect from the helmet during an impact (as understood from col. 4, lines 40-17 when the brim can be released from the crown with pressure, the support surfaces are configured to disconnect with impact, and the lugs are not disclosed as having a mechanism for retaining them within the channels and can therefore also breakaway or disconnect from the helmet during impact).
Regarding claim 80, Austin discloses wherein each of the one or more lugs, or a lug end of each of the one or more lugs, or a free end of each of the one or more lugs, comprises a widened end or mushroom shape or bulb shape (as can be seen in Figs. 2, the end of 16/18 closed to the main portion of flange 3/12 are widened).
Regarding claim 81, Austin discloses wherein the male connection part (16/18) is provided as an extension from the flange (3/12) (as best seen in Fig. 2, 16/18 extend away from 3/12).
Regarding claim 83, Austin discloses wherein the female connection part (32) is positioned as a corresponding helmet recess or helmet void on or of the helmet (as seen in Fig. 2, 32 are recesses in the helmet), the helmet recess or helmet void for receiving or accepting the male connection part (as seen in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 84, Austin discloses wherein the flange (3/12), in-use, extends across a surface of an underside of the helmet to provide the first visor support surface (as can be understood from Figs. 1-3 and 5).
Regarding claim 85, Austin discloses wherein the flange (3/12) extends substantially about a front circumference of a helmet opening of the helmet (as 3/12 extend around the entire perimeter which creates the helmet opening).
Regarding claim 86, Austin discloses wherein the flange (3/12 which includes lugs 16/18) comprises a notch or open aperture (28 and slots 24), the notch or open aperture configured to align with a strap (26) of the helmet to which the visor is to be connected (as seen in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 88, Austin discloses wherein the upstand (10) is part of the visor (4) and extends about an outer surface of the helmet to provide the second visor support surface (as understood from Figs. 1-2 and 5).
Regarding claim 89, Austin discloses wherein the upstand (10) substantially engages with an edge the perimeter of the helmet, when the visor is connected to the helmet (as understood from Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 92, Austin discloses wherein the two-part connection mechanism is configured to disconnect during an impact (as understood from col. 4, lines 40-17 when the brim can be released from the crown with pressure, the support surfaces are configured to disconnect with impact, and the lugs are not disclosed as having a mechanism for retaining them within the channels and can therefore also breakaway or disconnect from the helmet during impact).
Regarding claim 93, Austin discloses wherein the upstand (10) is configured to lever the visor out of connection during an impact from below (as with enough force from below at the proper angle on the visor 4, the upstand would act as a lever).
Regarding claim 94, Austin discloses wherein the flange (3/12 which includes 16/18) is configured to lever the visor out of connection during an impact from above (as with enough force at the proper angle from above, the upstand would disconnect while at least portions of the flange would act as lever).
Regarding claim 95, Austin discloses wherein the female connection part (32) is positioned on an underside of the helmet (as seen in Figs. 5) such that the female connection part is substantially obscured from view when the visor is detached from the helmet (as when held at least one angle and without the visor, 32 would not be visible).
Regarding claim 96, Austin discloses wherein the visor (4) is configured to break away or disconnect by moving substantially upwards and backwards in relation to the helmet, or by moving substantially downwards and outwards in relation to the helmet, or in a twist to a left or a right in relation to the helmet (as with the right amount of force at the proper angle, a twist to the left or right would disconnect the visor from the helmet).
Regarding claim 97, Austin discloses wherein the connection system provides for a tool-less securement of the visor to the helmet (as no tools are required to connect the visor to the helmet and the visor stays in place with a friction fit).
Claim(s) 77, 82, and 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foote (US 2005/0235402).
Regarding claim 77, Foote discloses connection system (Fig. 18) for connection of a visor (124) to a helmet (123/200), the connection system comprising: an upstand (outer wall 220, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18), the upstand configured to engage a perimeter of the helmet (see para. 0056), a flange (inner wall 221 and lower wall 222, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18) configured to engage an underside of the perimeter of the helmet (see para. 0056, as the cavity 223 engages the lower edge of 200, then flange 221/222 engages an underside of the perimeter), the flange comprising a male connection part (226), the male connection part comprising one or more lugs (as 226 can be considered lugs), and a female connection part positioned on the helmet (upper bosses 225, see para. 0056), the female connection part comprising one or more recesses or voids (as they are described as bosses for receiving screws) to receive the one or more lugs of the male connection part to form a two-part connection mechanism (see para. 0056), wherein the flange provides a first visor support surface, and wherein the upstand provides a second visor support surface (as the flange provides an inner surface of 124 and the upstand provides and outer surface of 124).
Regarding claim 82, Foote discloses wherein the flange (inner wall 221 and lower wall 222) comprises one or more flange recesses or apertures (224) to receive one or more respective separate male connection parts that are provided as a separate component part(s) (as 224 receives 226, see para. 0056).
Regarding claim 87, Foote discloses wherein the visor (124) comprises one or more reinforcements or support ribs (227) positioned between a visor portion (124’) of the visor and a flange portion (221/222) of the visor (see para. 0056).
Claim(s) 77, 88, and 90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knauer-Steinbruck (DE 202011001985).
Regarding claim 77, Knauer-Steinbruck discloses a connection system (Figs. 1-6) for connection of a visor (12) to a helmet (10), the connection system comprising: an upstand (32), the upstand configured to engage a perimeter of the helmet (as seen in Fig. 2), a flange (40) configured to engage an underside of the perimeter of the helmet (as disclosed in para. 0030 of translation), the flange comprising a male connection part, the male connection part comprising one or more lugs (see ends of 40 in Fig. 3), and a female connection part positioned on the helmet (see para. 0030 of translation where the female connection part is the region between the base body 14 and the decorative shell 18), the female connection part comprising one or more recesses or voids to receive the one or more lugs of the male connection part to form a two-part connection mechanism (as explained above), wherein the flange provides a first visor support surface (as 40 is a surface that supports the visor), and wherein the upstand provides a second visor support surface (as 32 is also a surface that supports the visor).
Regarding claim 88, Knauer-Steinbruck discloses wherein the upstand (32) is part of the visor (12) and extends about an outer surface of the helmet to provide the second visor support surface (as understood from Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 90, Knauer-Steinbruck discloses wherein: the upstand (32) is configured to reduce in height at a first end of the upstand and at a second end the upstand, and the reduction in height is a taper (as can be seen in Figs. 2-4, the outer ends of 32 taper and therefore reduce in height).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Wang Lee (US 2007/0011794) and Lee (US 2007/0067887) each teaches visors connected to helmets with an upstand and a flange.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732