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 . Claims 1-40 are being treated on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 is objected to for having multiple periods. Each claim must begin with a capital letter and end with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See: Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). See: MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 1 is objected for including multiple double parentheses with both the left and right parts. Such double parentheses are generally used for enclosing reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Applicant may use "a)", b) and "c)" or other proper numbering methods.
Claims 1, 13-14 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3 & 9, "comprising of" appears to read "comprising";
In claim 1, line 5, "the head of the wearer" appears to read "a wearer's head";
In claim 1, line 7, "intermediate" appears to read "between";
In claim 1, line 8, "the crown" appears read "a crown";
In claim 13, line 2, "each shock absorbing element" appears to read "each of the shock absorbing elements" for proper antecedent basis;
In claim 13, line 3, "a the cup containment region" appears to read "a cup containment region";
In claim 14, line 2, "each cup open top" appears to read "each of the cup open tops" for proper antecedent basis;
In claim 28, line 1, "intermediate" appears to read "between";
In claim 28, line 3, "comprising of" appears to read "comprising".
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 3, 12, 26 and 40 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "KevlarTM". The use of a trademark or trade name to identify a particular material or product renders the claim indefinite, as the scope of the claim is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "any one of more of the above", which renders the claim indefinite. First, the claim has inherited all the subject matter from claims 1 and/or 2; and it is unclear what is being referred to by "the above". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, it is unclear what is referred to by "more". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the materials i-ix in claim 3 forming a group of materials, and the limitation has been construed to be at least one material of the group.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a plurality of discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements", which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 12 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth "a plurality of interconnected discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements". It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the same shock absorbing elements in claim 1 or different. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the same shock absorbing elements in claim 1.
Claim 26 recites the term "preferably", which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether the limitation following "preferably" is recited as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the limitation following "preferably" is recited as optional in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "wherein the elements create a gap between the liner and the head of the wearer", which renders the claim indefinite. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the liner" in the claim. Second, the claim has been set forth as an apparatus claim; however, the limitation positively claims a process of using the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be wherein the elements are configured to create a gap between a helmet liner and the head of the wearer when in use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "wherein the elements create a gap between the liner and the head of the wearer", which appears to be claiming parts of the human body which are not directed to statutory subject matter (i.e. human per se). See MPEP 2106, Section I. It is respectfully suggested that this rejection may be overcome by including a phrase such as "configured to," "adapted to," "when in use," or "capable of."
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28-32, 34, 36-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ukekawa (JP 2015021203 A, hereinafter Ukekawa '203).
Regarding claim 28, Ukekawa '203 discloses a shock absorber panel (shock absorber 12, 13, or 14; figs. 1-2; see English translation; para. 0021) for a helmet (helmet 1; figs. 1-2; para. 0018) to locate in use intermediate a helmet shell and a head of a wearer over at least a crown of the head of the wearer (figs. 1-2; para. 0021), the shock absorber panel comprising of plurality of interconnected discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements (tubular structural parts 18; figs. 1-2; para. 0022) to, in concert, reduce transfer of shock forces encountered by the shell to the head of the wearer (figs. 1-2; para. 0022).
Regarding claim 29, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorber panel is of a unitary construction (fig. 3; para. 0022).
Regarding claim 30, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorber panel is concave in shape in use (when base 19 is bent upon an impact; see figs. 1-2; para. 0022).
Regarding claim 31, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorber panel comprises of a plurality of discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements connected together by live hinge elements (formed by portions of bendable base 19 between the tubular structural parts 18; figs. 1-2; para. 0022).
Regarding claim 32, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel claim 31, and further discloses wherein the shock absorbing elements are made of a flexible material (as being collapsable in its axial direction; para. 0022).
Regarding claim 34, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 31, and further discloses wherein each shock absorbing element comprises of a cup (tubular structural parts 18 each having a base formed by thin plate 19; figs. 1-2; para. 0022) having an open top and side walls extending to a base defining a cup containment region (see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 36, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 34, and further discloses wherein the cups comprise a mouth along the open top (see figs. 1-3), and wherein the cups can compress in the mouth to base direction (as being collapsable in its axial direction; para. 0022).
Regarding claim 37, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel as claimed of claim 34, and further discloses wherein the cups comprise a mouth along the open top (see figs. 1-3), and wherein the cups can compress in the mouth to base direction to act as a compressive spring (as being collapsable in its axial direction; para. 0022).
Regarding claim 38, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 34, and further discloses wherein the cups comprise a mouth along the open top (see figs. 1-3), wherein the cups can compress in the mouth to base direction to act as a compressive spring (as being collapsable in its axial direction; para. 0022), and wherein a resistance to compression is greater when the mouth is sealed to the liner of the helmet (inherent feature; due to air pressure).
Regarding claim 40, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorbing elements are in a matrix formation (see figs. 1-3) and spaced apart from each other to allow airflow between the elements to help keep the head of the wearer cool (see figs. 1-3), and wherein the elements create a gap between the liner and the head of the wearer to allow airflow therebetween between to help keep the head of the wearer cool (capable of creating a gap when being integrated in a helmet).
Claims 33, 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukekawa (JP 2015021203 A, hereinafter Ukekawa '203).
Regarding claim 33, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 31, except for wherein the shock absorbing elements are made of an elastically flexible material. However, Ukekawa '203 does disclose wherein the shock absorbing elements are made of a synthetic resin each having a high shock absorbing capacity by collapsing an axial direction of the shock absorbing elements (paras. 0022, 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the shock absorbing elements to be an elastically flexible material, in order to use a material of a high shock absorbing capacity which is able to quickly return to its original state after deformation for the shock absorbing elements. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 35, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 34, except for wherein the cup open top is sealed in an airtight manner against a liner of the helmet when the shock absorbing element is pressed against the liner. However, Ukekawa '203 does disclose wherein the shock absorbing elements are made of a flexible material (made of a synthetic resin and being collapsable in its axial direction; para. 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the shock absorbing elements as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with an identical tubular size, in order to manufacture the shock absorbing elements in an easy manner. By this configuration, each cup open top would be able to be sealed against a helmet liner in an airtight manner against the liner when in use as claimed. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 39, Ukekawa '203 discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 34, and further discloses wherein the cups comprise a mouth along the open top (see figs. 1-3).
Ukekawa '203 does not disclose wherein the cups are tri-spoke in cross sectional shape between the mouth and base. However, Ukekawa '203 does disclose that the tubular structure 18 is not limited to a polygonal shape or a cylindrical shape (para. 0022). In addition, Applicant does not set forth any criticality for the cups having a tri-spoke shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the shape of the cups as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein the cups are tri-spoke in cross sectional shape between a mouth of the open top opening and the base, in order to use another suitable shape configured to deform and absorb shock upon a compression force, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 3/1, 3/2/1, 4-7 and 10-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukekawa (JP 2015021203 A, hereinafter Ukekawa '203) in view of Ho (US 2018/0255861 A1) and further in view of Ukekawa (WO 2015/166598 A1, hereinafter Ukekawa '598).
Regarding claim 1, Ukekawa '203 discloses a protective helmet (helmet 1; figs. 1-2; see English translation; para. 0018) comprising:
a. a helmet shell (shell 2; figs. 1-2; para. 0018); and
b. an inner assembly (hammock 4, headband 5; figs. 1-2; para. 0018) comprising of:
i. a halo (headband 5; figs. 1-2; para. 0018) secured to the shell and positioned to locate about the head a circumference of a head of a wearer, intermediate of the head of the wearer and the shell (headband 5; figs. 1-2; para. 0018); and
ii. a subassembly (hammock 4, shock absorbers 12, 13, 14; figs. 1-2; para. 0018) comprising:
(a) a shock absorber panel (shock absorber 12, 13, or 14; figs. 1-2; para. 0021) located in use intermediate the shell and the head of the wearer over at least part of the crown and of the head of the wearer and extending downwardly from the crown (figs. 1-2; para. 0021), the shock absorber panel comprising of a plurality of interconnected discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements (tubular structural parts 18; figs. 1-2; para. 0022) to, in concert, reduce transfer of shock forces encountered by the shell to the head of the wearer (figs. 1-2; para. 0022);
(b) framing (hammock 4; figs. 1-2; para. 0018), secured to the halo (by connecting piece 10; figs. 1-2; para. 0020) and extending from the halo to the shock absorber panel (figs. 1-2) to secure the shock absorber panel to the halo (by an appropriate connecting means; figs. 1-2; para. 0023); and
(c) a head harness (chin straps 6; figs. 1-2; para. 0018) to, in use, locate to the head of the wearer and anchored to the framing (anchored to legs 7 of hammock 4; see figs. 1-2); and
Ukekawa '203 does not explicitly disclose wherein the framing is configured to releasably secure the shock absorber panel to the halo. However, Ukekawa '598, in an analogous art, teaches a protective helmet (fig. 1; see English translation; p. 7, para. 2) comprising: a helmet shell (rigid cap 2; fig. 1; p. 7, para. 2), a halo (headband 5; fig. 1; p. 7, para. 2), a shock absorber panel (plate-like base portion 22; figs. 2-3; p. 9, para. 2) comprising of a plurality of interconnected discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements (cylindrical structures 21; figs. 1-2; p. 9, para. 2), and framing (hammock 4 having legs 7; figs. 1-2; p. 7, paras. 2, 5, 7), the framing secured to the halo (by headband connecting part 16; figs. 1-3; p. 8, paras. 6-7) and extending from the halo to the shock absorber panel (fig. 1) to releasably secure the shock absorber panel to the halo (as the hammock 4 is detachably fastened to the headband 5; figs. 1-3; p. 8, para. 7; p. 9, para. 1; p. 14, para. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein the framing is configured to releasably secure the shock absorber panel to the halo as taught by Ukekawa '598, in order to provide the flexibility to adjust a position of the halo correspond to the shape of the head of the wearer without causing the shock absorber panel to shift positions (Ukekawa '598; p. 9, para. 1).
Ukekawa '203 does not disclose wherein a liner registered inside the helmet shell and intermediate of the helmet shell and the shock absorber panel. However, Ho, in an analogous art, discloses a protective helmet (fig. 1; para. 0036) comprising: a helmet shell (shell body 10; fig. 1; para. 0036), a halo (frame body 44; fig. 2; para. 0041) secured to the shell and positioned to locate about the head a circumference of a head of a wearer (fig. 2; para. 0041), a shock absorber panel (elastic carrier body 40; figs. 1-4; para. 0040) located in use intermediate the shell (fig. 4; para. 0040) and comprising a plurality of interconnected discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements (well-shaped structure sections 45; figs. 1-4; para. 0040), and a liner (filing body 30 comprising vent structures or gaps between foam materials of the filling body 30; figs. 1-4; paras. 0036, 0051) registered inside the helmet shell (figs. 1-4; para. 0038) and intermediate of the helmet shell and the shock absorber panel (figs. 1-4; para. 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein a liner registered inside the helmet shell and intermediate of the helmet shell and the shock absorber panel as taught by Ho, in order to bear external impact force to achieve a cushioning and shock absorption effect, and also cooperate with the shock absorbing elements to help in enhancing air convection of the helmet thereby reducing mugginess of the wearer in long-term wear (Ho; paras. 0046, 0051).
Regarding claim 2, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1, except for wherein the helmet shell meets at least one of: a. the standard of EN443:2008 for penetration resistance; b. the standard of EN443:2008 for impact resistance; and c. the standard of NFPA 1971:2008 for heat resistance. However, Ukekawa '203 does disclose wherein the helmet shell is made of a hard material such as metal or synthetic resin (para. 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the hard material of the shell as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, to meet at least one of the above standards, in order to provide sufficient protection to a wearer. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3/1 or 3/2/1, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1, or claim 2, except for wherein the helmet shell comprises, extensive over its shape, an impact resistant material selected from one or more of: i. a plastic material; ii. poly-carbonate; iii. co-molded poly-carbonates; iv. polyamide; v. resin infused polyaramid; vi. resin infused KevlarTM; vii. resin infused fiberglass; viii. resin infused carbon fiber; ix. a laminated assembly of any one or more of the above; and x. a laminate sandwich assembly of any one of more of the above involving a foamed material as the sandwiched material. However, Ukekawa '203 does disclose wherein the helmet shell is made of a synthetic resin (para. 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the synthetic resin material of the shell as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, to include at least one of the recited resins, in order to use a suitable material provide sufficient protection to a wearer. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1. Ho further teaches wherein the liner is a cap (filing body 30 having a cap shape; figs. 1, 4) located intermediate of the helmet shell and the inner assembly and comprises of a layer of foam (paras. 0041, 0051) to provide thermal insulation from heat external of the helmet shell for the head of the wearer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the liner, with wherein the liner is a cap and comprises of a layer of foam as taught by Ho, in order to provide achieve a cushioning and shock absorption effect. By combination of Ukekawa '203 and Ho, the liner would be a cap located intermediate of the helmet shell and the inner assembly and comprise of a layer of foam capable of providing thermal insulation from heat external of the helmet shell for the head of the wearer.
Regarding claim 5, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1, and Ukekawa '203further discloses wherein the halo is releasably secured to the shell (via hammock connecting projections 9 and headband connecting piece 10; figs. 1-2, 5; paras. 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 6, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1, and Ukekawa '203 further discloses wherein the halo comprises of a halo band (headband 5; figs. 1-2; para. 0018) located about the head of the wearer in use intermediate of the head of the wearer and the helmet shell inside the helmet shell (figs. 1-2; para. 0018).
Regarding claim 7, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 6, except for wherein the halo band comprises at least 3 arch members, wherein the arch members are able to releasably connect together using mechanical fastening that when connected together define a rigid halo band as a structural component from which the subassembly depends. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such a configuration, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPO 177, 179.
Regarding claim 10, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1, and Ukekawa '203 further discloses wherein in concert the helmet shell and the halo act to provide crush resistance of the helmet shell (the helmet shell is made of a hard material such as metal or synthetic resin and headband 5 provides support to the outer shell; fig. 1; para. 0018).
Regarding claim 11, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1. As discussed for claim1, Ukekawa '598 teaches wherein the framing is detachably fastened to the halo (the hammock 4 is detachably fastened to the headband 5; figs. 1-3; p. 8, para. 7; p. 9, para. 1; p. 14, para. 4). Therefore, by combination of Ukekawa '203 and Ukekawa '598, the subassembly can be repeatedly released from and coupled to the halo.
Regarding claim 12, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1, and Ukekawa '203 further discloses wherein the shock absorber panel comprises of a plurality of discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements (tubular structural parts 18; figs. 1-2) connected together by live hinge elements (formed by portions of bendable base 19 between the tubular structural parts 18; figs. 1-2; para. 0022).
Ukekawa '203 does not explicitly disclose wherein the shock absorbing elements are made of an elastically flexible material. However, Ukekawa '203 does disclose wherein the shock absorbing elements are made of a synthetic resin each having a high shock absorbing capacity by collapsing an axial direction of the shock absorbing elements (paras. 0022, 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the shock absorbing elements to be an elastically flexible material, in order to use a material of a high shock absorbing capacity which is able to quickly return to its original state after deformation for the shock absorbing elements. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 12, and Ukekawa '203 further discloses wherein each shock absorbing element comprises of a cup (tubular structural parts 18 each having a base formed by thin plate 19; figs. 1-2; para. 0022) having an open top and side walls extending to a base defining a cup containment region (see figs. 1-2), wherein the cup open top in use is presented to the helmet shell (figs. 1-2; para. 0023). By combination of Ukekawa '203 and Ho, the cup open top in use would be presented to the liner.
Regarding claim 14, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 13, except for wherein each cup open top is able to be sealed against the liner in an airtight manner against the liner so that air in each cup is able to be trapped and provide the cup with a higher resistance to compression. However, as the shock absorbing elements are made of an elastically flexible material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the shock absorbing elements as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with an identical tubular size, in order to manufacture the shock absorbing elements in an easy manner. By this configuration, each cup open top would be able to be sealed against the liner in an airtight manner against the liner and air in each cup would be able to be trapped and provide the cup with a higher resistance to compression. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 13. As the shock absorbing elements are made of an elastically flexible material, the cups would be able to compress in a mouth of the open top to base direction to act as a compressive spring.
Regarding claim 16, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 13, except or wherein the cups are tri-spoke in cross sectional shape between a mouth of the open top opening and the base. However, Ukekawa '203 does disclose that the tubular structure 18 is not limited to a polygonal shape or a cylindrical shape (para. 0022). In addition, Applicant does not set forth any criticality for the cups having a tri-spoke shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the shape of the cups as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein the cups are tri-spoke in cross sectional shape between a mouth of the open top opening and the base, in order to use another suitable shape configured to deform and absorb shock upon a compression force, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Regarding claim 17, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 12, and Ukekawa '203 further discloses wherein the shock absorbing elements are spaced apart from each other to allow airflow between the shock absorbing elements to help keep the head of a user wearing the protective helmet cool (figs. 1-2; paras. 0033-0034).
Regarding claim 18, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 12. As the shock absorbing elements are made of an elastically flexible material, the shock absorbing elements would bend, twist or collapse upon an impact force. Therefore, by combination of Ukekawa '203 and Ho, when an impact force is received to a skin of the modified helmet, the shock absorbing elements would bend, twist or collapse therefore be able to slide across the liner to absorb energy from the impact force.
Regarding claim 19, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1. Ukekawa '598 further teaches wherein the framing is releasably secured to the halo using a connector arrangement (a rivet-shaped coupling member detachably coupled to connection holes 20; figs. 1-3; p. 8, para. 7; p. 9, para. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein the framing is releasably secured to the halo using a connector arrangement as taught by Ukekawa '598, in order to use a suitable fastening means to releasably fasten the framing to the halo.
Regarding claim 20, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 19, except for wherein the connector arrangement comprises a twist and lock connector arrangement. However, Applicant does not set forth any criticality for the twist and lock connector arrangement. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the connector arrangement to comprise a twist and lock connector arrangement. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 21, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1. As discussed for claim 1, by combination of Ukekawa '203 and Ukekawa '598, the framing would connect the shock absorber panel to the halo in a releasable manner.
Regarding claim 22, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1, and Ukekawa '203 further discloses wherein the framing (hammock 4; figs. 1-2) comprises of at least one frame member (legs 7; figs. 1-2; para. 0019).
Regarding claim 23, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 22, and Ukekawa '203 further discloses wherein there are two frame members each secured to the halo and on each side of the head when in use (eight frame members, two on each side; see fig. 1; para. 0019).
Regarding claim 24, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 22, and Ukekawa '203 further discloses wherein the frame members (legs 7; figs. 1-2) independently connect to the shock absorber panel (shock absorber 12, 13, or 14; see fig. 1).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukekawa '203, Ho and Ukekawa '598 and further in view of Barthold (US 5,898,949 A).
Regarding claim 8, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 6. Ukekawa '203 does not disclose wherein the halo comprises of anchor members secured to the halo band at spaced apart locations, wherein the anchor members project from the halo band to present fastening regions at where the anchor members can connect with the helmet shell. However, Barthold teaches a protective helmet (helmet 10; fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 11-25) comprising a helmet shell (outer shell 12; fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 11-25) and a halo (head band 22; fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 11-25), wherein the halo comprises of anchor members (tab 130 and members 92, 94; fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 57-66; col. 5, ll. 1-21) secured to the halo band at spaced apart locations (fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 57-66; col. 5, ll. 1-21), wherein the anchor members project from the halo band to present fastening regions at where the anchor members can connect with the helmet shell (fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 57-66; col. 5, ll. 1-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein the halo comprises of anchor members secured to the halo band at spaced apart locations, wherein the anchor members project from the halo band to present fastening regions at where the anchor members can connect with the helmet shell as taught by Barthold, in order to provide a suitable approach to further detachably secure the headband to the helmet shell and assist in mounting the liner to the helmet shell (Barthold; claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598, Ho and Barthold, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 8. Barthold further teaches wherein the anchor members releasably secure to the shell at least 2 spaced apart locations (fig. 1; as discussed above for claim 8) and provide shock impact absorbing capacity whilst keeping a liner (inner cap 14; fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 11-15) in the helmet at a correct height and orientation (fig. 1; claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein the anchor members releasably secure to the shell at least 2 spaced apart locations and provide shock impact absorbing capacity whilst keeping the liner in the helmet at a correct height and orientation, as taught by Barthold, in order to detachably secure the headband to the helmet shell and assist in mounting the liner to the helmet shell both with a balanced configuration (Barthold; claim 1).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukekawa '203, Ho and Ukekawa '598 and further in view of Schiebl (US 2002/0010958 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1. Ukekawa '203 does not explicitly disclose wherein the head harness is releasably anchored to the framing. However, figs. 1-2 do appear to show that the chin straps 6 are connected to the hammock 4 via a rivet-shaped fastener. In addition, Schiebl, in an analogous art, teaches a protective helmet (fig. 3) comprising a head hardness (chin straps 72; fig. 6; para. 0055), wherein the head harness is releasably anchored in the helmet (claims 2, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the head harness as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein the head harness is releasably anchored in the helmet, in order to provide use a suitable detachable fastening means to couple the head harness to the framing. By this combination, the head harness would be releasably anchored to the framing.
Regarding claim 26, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1. Ukekawa '203 does not explicitly disclose wherein the head harness is releasably anchored at least 3 and preferably 4 spaced apart locations to the framing in a position adjustable manner. However, Schiebl, in an analogous art, teaches a protective helmet (fig. 3) comprising a head hardness (chin strap; para. 0055), wherein the head harness is releasably anchored at least 3 and preferably 4 spaced apart locations in a position adjustable manner (figs. 6-7; para. 0055; claims 2, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method as disclosed by head harness, with wherein the head harness is releasably anchored at least 3 and preferably 4 spaced apart locations in a position adjustable manner as taught by Schiebl, in order to provide the flexibility of repositioning the head harness or cleaning the head harness. By this combination, the head harness would be releasably anchored to the framing.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukekawa '203, Ho and Ukekawa '598 and further in view of Johnstone (GB 2402319 A).
Regarding claim 27, Ukekawa '203, Ukekawa '598 and Ho, in combination, disclose the protective helmet of claim 1. Ukekawa '203 does not disclose wherein a visor is provided and is releasable mounted to the halo in a pivotal manner to allow the visor to move between a higher stowed condition and a lower deployed condition. However, Johnstone, in an analogous art, teaches a protective helmet (figs. 9A-9B; p. 11, paras. 2-4; claims 1, 14) comprising a halo (head strap 12; figs. 1-2, 5A; p. 6, para. 2), wherein a visor (eye shield 14; figs. 1-2; p. 6, para. 2) is provided and is releasable mounted to the halo (abstract; claim 1) in a pivotal manner to allow the visor to move between a higher stowed condition (fig. 3; p. 10, para. 6) and a lower deployed condition (fig. 1; p. 10, para. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective helmet as disclosed by Ukekawa '203, with wherein a visor is provided and is releasable mounted to the halo in a pivotal manner to allow the visor to move between a higher stowed condition and a lower deployed condition as taught by Johnstone, in order to provide a protective helmet integrated with an eye shield to protect a user's eyes for specific applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Darnell (US 2010/0258988 A1) can be a 102 reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 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 on (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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732