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 timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/15/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II do not lack unity because Boutin doesn’t teach a retainer crossing the inserts from side to side and fixed to the shell at opposing sides of the insert for constraining it to the shell. Applicant further submits that Boutin doesn’t teach a retainer shaped so as to laterally and inwardly trap the insert/s and the “retainer-insert-shell” relationship constitutes the required contribution over the art, and therefore unity is satisfied under 37 CFR 1.475 and PCT Rule 13. Applicant’s remarks are persuasive and the lack of unity requirement is withdrawn.
This application includes a pre-amendment of 5/6/24 with claims 1-23 amended, new claim 24, and claims 1-24 pending.
A power of attorney is also on file for this application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par.34- “Figs. 17-20 depict a third embodiment of the helmet” should be revised to delete “third” and insert “fourth”.
Par.108- “3respectively” should be revised to recite “3 respectively”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 13, 21, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: “one or more retainers” should be revised to recite “the one or more retainers” to provide proper antecedent to the recitation of one or more retainers of claim 1.
Claim 13: “the inserts” should be revised to recite “the one or more inserts” to provide proper antecedent to the recitation of the one or more inserts of claim 1.
Claim 21: “wherein a top retainer is substantially dome-shaped so as to fit with an apex of the wearer’s head and to laterally and inwardly trap one corresponding top insert” should be revised for consistency with claim 1, as claim 1 previously recites “one or more retainers” and a suggested revision is as follows- “wherein said one or more retainers includes a substantially dome-shaped top retainer configured to fit with an apex of the wearer’s head and said at least one insert includes a top insert, said top retainer configured to laterally and inwardly trap said corresponding top insert.”
Claim 24: “the insert/s” should be revised to recite “the one or more inserts” for consistency with the recitation of claim 1 and “that prevents” should be revised to recite “configured to prevent” for proper functional recitation.
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.
Claims 10, 11, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 10 contains the trademark/trade name Velcro. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe hook and loop and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the one or more retainers…exhibit a bending stiffness that is comparable to or less than the compressive stiffness of the insert/s. It’s not clear what the scope of “comparable to” is, as comparable to means “similar”. How similar must the bending stiffness of the one or more retainers of the prior art be to the compressive stiffness of the insert/s in order for the bending stiffness to be considered as “comparable to” the compressive stiffness of the insert/s?
Claim 21 recites the top retainer is “substantially dome-shaped”. The term “substantially” modifies “dome-shaped”. However, it’s not clear to what degree the prior art must be dome-shaped in order to meet the claimed “substantially dome-shaped.”
Claim 24 recites the retainer comprises portions flanked to the insert/s acting as shoulders that prevents lateral movements of the retainer. It appears that “prevents lateral movements of the retainer” should be revised to recite “prevents lateral movements of the one or more inserts” based on the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Beckman (U.S. 2020/0085130). Beckman teaches a helmet 300 comprising: a shell 302; one or more inserts 304 of a cellular energy-absorbing material (foam); one or more retainers 402 crossing the one or more inserts 304 from side to side and fixed to the shell 302 at opposing sides of each insert 304 for constraining it to the shell 302, the one or more retainers 402 are shaped so as to laterally and inwardly trap the one or more inserts 304.
For claim 2, Beckman teaches the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the one or more inserts 304 have a curved shape.
For claim 6, Beckman teaches the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the one or more retainers 402 comprise a plurality of first connectors 306 configured to reversibly engage with respective second connectors 408 attached to the shell 302.
For claim 10, as best understood, Beckman teaches the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the one or more retaining elements support one or more connecting means, like Velcro coins, for connecting a comfort liner to the rest of the helmet. Beckman discloses one or more coupling mechanisms 306,408 may be Velcro.
For claim 11, as best understood, Beckman teaches the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the one or more retainers 402 are deformable (formed of ABS polymer) and exhibit a bending stiffness that is comparable to or less than the compressive stiffness of the insert/s 304 as the insert is formed from plastically deformable foam layer including expanded polystyrene and polyethylene among other materials.
For claim 18, Beckman teaches the shell 302 is a hard shell as the shell can be plastic, metal or other durable material as in par.41.
For claim 19, Beckman teaches the helmet according to claim 18, wherein the shell 302 comprises multi-purpose connectors to which at least one retainer is configured to reversibly connect. Beckman teaches in par.43 the connectors 306,408 may be snap-fit engagement mechanisms, pegs, latches, etc which are considered as multi-purpose connectors allowing for reversible connection of the at least one retainer to the shell.
For claim 21, as best understood, Beckman teaches the helmet according to claim 1, wherein a top retainer 402 is curved.
For claim 22, Beckman teaches the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the retainer 402 is only one and is configured to trap one or more inserts 304.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Ward et al. (Ward, U.S. 2021/0037905). Ward teaches a helmet comprising: a shell 20; one or more inserts 30 of a cellular energy-absorbing material (foam); one or more retainers 70 crossing the one or more inserts 30 from side to side and fixed to the shell 20 at opposing sides of each insert 30 for constraining it to the shell 30 via fasteners 25, the one or more retainers 70 are shaped so as to laterally and inwardly trap the one or more inserts 30 as the retainer includes ring-shaped structure 40 which receives insert 30 between wall portions 48a,b causing the insert to be “sandwiched” between shell 20 and ring-shaped structure 40.
For claim 18, the outer shell is considered as a hard shell as the shell is disclosed as shaped to protect the head of the wearer and is considered as hard to some degree as the claim doesn’t provide a particular material or further details of a hard shell.
For claim 20, Ward teaches a side retainer 40,70 that is substantially ring shaped so as to wrap at least a part of a wearer’s head and to laterally and inwardly trap one or more corresponding lateral inserts.
For claim 24, Ward teaches the retainer comprises portions 48a,b flanked to the insert/s acting as shoulders that prevents lateral movements of the retainer (one or more inserts?).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman ’130 in view of Chilson et al. (U.S. 11,766,083). Beckman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beckman doesn’t teach the shell 402 comprises at least one vent and the one or more inserts are arranged inside the shell so as to leave the at least one vent free. Beckman doesn’t teach the one or more retainers are fixed to the shell so as to not span across the at least one vent. Chilson teaches an analagous helmet including a shell 110 comprising at least one vent V0 allowing for airflow into and out of the shell and one or more inserts 160 including one or more retainers 120 arranged to leave the vent free as the retainer includes V1. In modifying Beckman’s shell to comprise the at least one vent, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the arrangement of the one or more inserts and one or more retainers can leave the vent free or not, and leaving the vent free would allow for airflow through the vent to improve the wearer’s comfort. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Beckman’s shell to comprise at least one vent and the one or more inserts are arranged inside the shell so as to leave the at least one vent free, and one or more retainers fixed to the shell so as to not span across the at least one vent, as Beckman teaches it’s known in the helmet art to provide a shell with at least one vent and arranging the at least one insert inside the shell and fixing the one or more retainers to the shell so as to leave the at least one vent free and so as to not span across the at least one vent would allow for unimpeded airflow through the at least one vent for improved wearer’s comfort.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman ‘130 in view of Chilson et al. (Chilson, U.S. 10,736,373). Beckman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beckman doesn’t teach the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the cellular energy absorbing material of the one or more inserts comprises a plurality of interconnected open cells configured to absorb energy by plastic deformation in response to a longitudinal compressive load applied to said cells and at least part of the longitudinal axes of the cells are normal to an inner surface of the shell on which the one or more inserts are arranged. Chilson teaches an analagous helmet 100 with a cellular energy absorbing material 120 forming an insert 122 and the material comprising a plurality of interconnected open cells configured to absorb energy by plastic deformation in response to a longitudinal compressive load applied to the cells (insert is formed from EPS or EPP capable of plastic deformation) and at least part of the longitudinal axes of the cells are normal to an inner surface of the shell 102 on which the one or more inserts 122 are arranged (col.4, lines 1-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute Beckman’s cellular energy absorbing material to comprise a plurality of interconnected open cells configured to absorb energy by plastic deformation in response to a longitudinal compressive load applied to said cells and at least part of the longitudinal axes of the cells are normal to an inner surface of the shell on which the one or more inserts are arranged as taught by Chilson, as Chilson’s insert allows for airflow therethrough while also absorbing impact energy.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman ‘130 in view of Halldin (U.S. 8,578,520). Beckman discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach a low frictional layer arranged over the shell in correspondence to the one or more inserts. Halldin teaches a helmet with an impact absorbing insert 2 and a low frictional layer arranged over a layer 3 in correspondence to the insert 2. The low frictional layer allows for movement between the insert and layer 3 for absorption of rotational energy due to an impact received by the helmet such that less impact energy is transmitted to the wearer’s head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Beckman’s helmet to provide a low frictional layer arranged over the shell in correspondence to the one or more inserts, as Halldin teaches it is known in the art to provide a low frictional layer as part of an impact absorption structure for absorption and dissipation of rotational energy from a helmet impact.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman in view of Ho (U.S. 2018/0255861). Beckman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beckman doesn’t teach the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the shell comprises a plurality of shoulders defining one or more places wherein respective one or more inserts are accommodated to prevent a global lateral displacement of the respective insert. Ho discloses an analagous helmet 100 with a shell 10 comprising a plurality of shoulders defining one or more places wherein padding components 20,30 are accommodated (see left shoulder and right shoulder where shell 10 transitions from an upper orientation downwardly to curve around a lower edge towards an inner surface of the helmet). Modifying Beckman’s shell to comprise a plurality of shoulders defining one or more places where the one more inserts are accommodated is expected to result in preventing global lateral displacement of the respective insert as the shoulders serve as walls at respective left and right sides of the one or more inserts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Beckman’s shell to comprise a plurality of shoulders defining one or more places wherein respective one or more inserts are accommodated to prevent a global lateral displacement of the respective insert, as the shoulders serve to retain the one or more inserts in the desired position.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman in view of Straus (U.S. 7,328,462). Beckman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beckman doesn’t teach the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the shell 302 is a deformable shell made of a foam material or comprising a lattice structure. Straus teaches an analagous helmet shell formed as a lattice frame of strips having a plurality of fibers impregnated with resin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Beckman to
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman in view of Magee (U.S. 2016/0029731). Beckman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Beckman doesn’t teach the helmet according to claim 14, also comprising an upper skin configured to cover at least in part an upper and outer surface of the shell, and/or a lower skin configured to cover at least in part a lower and outer surface of the shell. Magee teaches a helmet comprising an upper skin 10 configured to cover at least an upper and outer surface of the shell 24. The upper skin 10 is deformable and absorbs impacts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Beckman’s helmet to comprise an upper skin configured to cover at least in part an upper and outer surface of the shell, as Magee teaches the upper skin is impact absorbing and deformable as an additional protective layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13, 17, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732