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
The amendments filed with the written response received on July 6, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 77-82, 84-90 and 92-97 have been amended; and claims 83, 91, and 98 are canceled. Accordingly, claims 77-82, 84-90 and 92-97 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 77-82, 84-90 and 92-97.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed March 9, 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
Previous objections to the drawings;
Previous objections to the specification;
Previous objections to the claims;
Previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
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, 92, 94, and 96-97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fohl (US 4744107).
Regarding claim 77, Fohl discloses connection system (Figs. 1 and 5) comprising: a helmet (1) comprising a recess (10); a visor (2) comprising an aperture (12); and a male connection part (17) comprising: a head (17a) abutting the visor such that the visor extends between the head and the helmet (as understood from Figs. 1 and 6, and better understood with the embodiment of Fig. 3), a shaft (17d) extending from the head (see Fig. 6) through the aperture and into the recess(as understood from Figs. 1 and 6, and better understood with the embodiment of Fig. 3), and an end (17b) extending outwardly from the shaft (see Fig. 6), the end positioned in the recess (10, similar to how 15b is withing the recess in Fig. 3) and releasably coupling the visor to the helmet (see col. 3, lines 10-25), the end including a larger transverse cross sectional area than the shaft (as can be seen in Figs. 5).
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 92, Fohl discloses wherein the visor and the helmet are configured to disconnect during an impact (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 94, Fohl discloses wherein the visor includes a flange (outward extending bill portion) and the flange is configured to lever the visor out of connection during an impact from above (as when the flange is hit with enough force from above, it would act as a lever to displace the rest of the visor).
Regarding claim 96, Fohl discloses wherein the visor is configured to release from the helmet in response to impact loading that causes the visor to move in at least one of: an upward and rearward direction relative to the helmet; a downward and outward direction relative to the helmet; or a twisting direction toward a left side or a right side of the helmet (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 10-25, and if hit upward and rearward, down and outward, or in a twisting direction, the visor is capable of disconnection from the helmet).
Regarding claim 97, Fohl discloses wherein the connection system provides for a tool-less securement of the visor to the helmet (as understood from col. 3, lines 10-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 77-82, 84-90, and 92-97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote (US 2005/0235402) in view of Fohl.
Regarding claim 77, Foote discloses connection system (Fig. 18) comprising: a helmet (123/200) comprising a recess (upper bosses 225, see para. 0056); a visor (124) comprising an aperture (224); and a male connection part (226) comprising: a head abutting the visor such that the visor extends between the head and the helmet (head end of 226, as seen in Fig. 18, as when the shaft portion of 226 is inserted into 224, the head would remain under 224 as is normal use and operation of a screw), a shaft (shaft portion of 224 as can be seen in Fig. 18) extending from the head (see Fig. 18) through the aperture and into the recess (as understood from para. 0056), and an end (end opposite the head), the end positioned in the recess (as disclosed in para. 0056)
Foote does not expressly disclose the end extending outwardly from the shaft, the end positioned in the recess and releasably coupling the visor to the helmet, the end including a larger transverse cross sectional area than the shaft.
Fohl teaches a safety helmet with detachable visor (5) wherein the male connection part (17) comprises head (17a), a shaft (17d), and an end (17b) extending outwardly from the shaft (see Fig. 6), the end positioned in the recess (10, similar to how 15b is withing the recess in Fig. 3) and releasably coupling the visor to the helmet (see col. 3, lines 10-25), the end including a larger transverse cross sectional area than the shaft (as can be seen in Figs. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the shaft and end of the male connection part of Foote, with that taught by Fohl, in order “to be of such a nature that, in the event of a crash, the accessory is automatically detached from the helmet shell 1 when a given detachment force is encountered, in order to prevent injuries” (see col. 3, lines 19-22 of Fohl).
Regarding claim 78, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein: the visor includes an upstand (outer wall 220, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18) and a flange (inner wall 221 and lower wall 222, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18), the flange providing a first visor support surface, the upstand providing a second visor support surface; and the first visor support surface and the second visor support surface (as the flange provides an inner surface of 124 and the upstand provides and outer surface of 124) are configured such that the visor may break away or disconnect from the helmet during an impact (as enough force in a downward and angled movement on the visor would cause the visor to break away/disconnect).
Regarding claim 79, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein: the visor includes an upstand (outer wall 220, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18) and a flange (inner wall 221 and lower wall 222, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18), the flange providing a first visor support surface, the upstand providing a second visor support surface (as the flange provides an inner surface of 124 and the upstand provides and outer surface of 124); and the first visor support surface, the second visor support surface, and the male connection part are configured such that the visor may break away or disconnect from the helmet during an impact (as enough force in a downward and angled movement on the visor would cause the visor to break away/disconnect).
Regarding claim 80, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the end (17b of Fohl) of the male connection part comprises a widened end (as seen in Fig. 6 of Fohl).
Regarding claim 81, the modified system of Foote discloses where the visor includes a flange (inner wall 221 and lower wall 222, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18), and the male connection part (226) projects from the flange (as at least the shaft and end of the male connection part project outward/past 221 when connected).
Regarding claim 82, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor includes a flange (220/221/223/224/227), the flange includes the aperture (224, see Fig. 18), and the male connection part (226) is received in the aperture in the flange (as disclosed in para. 0056).
Regarding claim 84, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor includes a flange (220/221/223/224/227), and the flange, in-use, extends across a surface of an underside of the helmet (as understood from Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 85, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor includes a flange (220/221/223/224/227), and the flange extends along at least a front portion of an underside perimeter edge of a helmet opening of the helmet (as understood from Figs. 18-19).
Regarding claim 86, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor includes a flange (220/221/223/224/227), the flange comprises a notch or an open aperture (230, see para. 0057), the notch or open aperture configured to align with a strap (122) of the helmet to which the visor is to be connected (see para. 0057).
Regarding claim 87, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor (124) comprises one or more reinforcements or support ribs (227), a visor portion (124’), and a flange portion (221/222), one or more reinforcements or support ribs the positioned between a visor portion (124’) of the visor and a flange portion (221/222) of the visor (see para. 0056).
Regarding claim 88, the modified system of Foote discloses t wherein: the visor includes an upstand (outer wall 220, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18), and the upstand extends along an outer surface of the helmet (as can be seen between Figs. 12 and 18, and Examiner notes that the term "along" is very broad and has a definition of "on a line or course parallel and close to; continuously beside" (Defn. No. 2 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com))
Regarding claim 89, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein: the visor includes an upstand (outer wall 220, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18), and when the visor is connected to the helmet the upstand engages an edge region of an outer perimeter surface of the helmet (as can be understood from Fig. 18, the outer wall engages at least a bottom of the surface of the helmet at least a portion of which can be considered an edge region of the outer perimeter surface).
Regarding claim 90, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein: the visor includes an upstand (outer wall 220, Examiner notes these references numbers appear to be reversed in Fig. 18), and first and second ends of the upstand taper in height (where the outer wall terminates where bill 124’ begins, as can be seen in Figs. 18, the outer wall tapers in height as it approaches the ends).
Regarding claim 92, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor and the helmet are configured to disconnect during an impact (as the male connection part of Foote has been modified by Fohl, it is capable of disconnecting during impact, see col. 3, lines 10-25 of Fohl).
Regarding claim 93, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor includes a flange (220/221) and an upstand (124’), and the upstand is configured to lever the visor out of connection during an impact from below (as the male connection part of Foote has been modified by Fohl, it is capable of disconnecting during impact, see col. 3, lines 10-25 of Fohl, and if 124’ is hit from below with enough force, this would lever the visor out of connection).
Regarding claim 94, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor includes a flange (124’) and the flange is configured to lever the visor out of connection during an impact from above (as the male connection part of Foote has been modified by Fohl, it is capable of disconnecting during impact, see col. 3, lines 10-25 of Fohl, and if 124’ is hit from above with enough force, this would lever the visor out of connection).
Regarding claim 95, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the recess (upper bosses 225, see para. 0056) is positioned on an underside of the helmet such (as understood from Fig. 18, the recesses are where 226 connects into and are therefore on the underside of the helmet) such that the recess is substantially obscured from view when the visor is detached from the helmet (as the recesses cannot be seen in Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 96, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the visor is configured to release from the helmet in response to impact loading that causes the visor to move in at least one of: an upward and rearward direction relative to the helmet; a downward and outward direction relative to the helmet; or a twisting direction toward a left side or a right side of the helmet (as the male connection part of Foote has been modified by Fohl, it is capable of disconnecting during impact, see col. 3, lines 10-25 of Fohl, and if 124’ is hit with enough force from a down and outward impact direction or a twisting direction).
Regarding claim 97, the modified system of Foote discloses wherein the connection system provides for a tool-less securement of the visor to the helmet ((as the male connection part of Foote has been modified by Fohl).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 6, 2026, with respect to 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 77-90 and 92-97 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights