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 response of 4/21/2026 is received. Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 21, and 24 are currently amended. Claim 7 is cancelled, and claims 1-6 and 8-24 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: please insert --said-- after “trap” to recite “to trap said one or more inserts”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 is amended to recite the one or more retainers are deformable and exhibit a bending stiffness that is equal to or less than the compressive stiffness of the insert/s. The specification and originally filed claims recite “comparable to or less than”, which was indefinite as set forth in the OA of 2/13/26. Amending the limitation to recite “equal to” is considered as new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman ‘130 in view of Chilson ‘373. Beckman discloses the invention substantially as claimed. 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. However, Beckman doesn’t teach 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 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 modify 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.
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, Beckman teaches the helmet according to claim 1, wherein the one or more retaining elements support one or more connecting means for connecting a comfort liner to the rest of the helmet. Beckman teaches the one or more coupling mechanisms 306,408 may be hook and loop.
For claim 11, 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 equal to or less than the compressive stiffness of the insert/s as the insert 304 is formed from plastically deformable foam layer including 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 302.
For claim 21, 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, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. ‘905 in view of Chilson ‘373. Ward discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ward teaches a helmet comprising: a hard 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 a side retainer includes a substantially ring-shaped structure 40 to wrap at least a part of a wearer’s head, the substantially ring-shaped structure 40 receives insert 30 between wall portions 48a,b causing the insert to be "sandwiched" between shell 20 and ring-shaped structure 40. However, Ward doesn’t teach 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. 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 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 modify 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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman '130 in view of Chilson ‘373 as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman '130 in view of Chilson ‘373 as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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 Chilson ‘373 as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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 Chilson ‘373 as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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 32 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’s shell to form as a deformable shell made of foam material or comprising a lattice structure as Straus teaches the lattice shell structure reduces the weight of the helmet while also adequately protecting the wearer from injury.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman in view of Chilson ‘373 and Straus ‘462 as applied to claim 14 above, and further 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
Claims 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered. Applicant submits that the rejections rely on an unreasonably broad interpretation of the term “retainer” and Beckman’s foam (cellular) layer 304 is not laterally or inwardly trapped by the shell layer 402 and instead, the foam layer is simply disposed against the shell, there is no structure enclosing or confining the foam laterally and therefore, the fundamental “trapping” function required by the claims is absent. Applicant further submits no retainer is crossing the insert in Beckman, as the Office asserts element 402 “crosses” the foam layer 304; however, Beckman’s shell layer 402 contacts only one side (inner face) of the foam layer 304- it does not extend across the foam layer 304 “from side to side” and does not form any structure spanning over or around the insert. Accordingly, the shell, layer 402 cannot reasonably be interpreted as “crossing” the insert as required by the claims. In response, the Examiner submits that the recitation of the one or more retainers as “shaped so as to laterally and inwardly trap the one or more inserts” is fairly broad as it doesn’t provide further details as to the shape of the retainers. Applicant’s assertion that the retainer structure indicated by the Examiner as 402 does not extend across the foam layer 304 from side to side and doesn’t form any structure spanning over or around the insert is not persuasive as retainer 402 extends across and over the foam layer and is in fact co-extensive with the foam layer/one or more inserts 304 and therefore is considered as shaped so as to laterally and inwardly trap the one or more inserts as the one or more inserts 304 is retained to the helmet shell by the retainer fixed by the plurality of first and second connectors. It is noted that there is no claimed structure set forth as extending “around the insert”. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification; however, further structural details of the retainer set forth in the specification are not imported to the claims.
For Ward, Applicant submits that Ward’s ring-shaped structure doesn’t cross the insert from side to side and is a peripheral structure, different from the retainer structure as required by the claims which require the retainer extending across the insert and fixed to the shell at opposing sides of the insert. As discussed in the rejection, the retainer 70 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 and extends across the insert from side to side, with fasteners 25 securing the retainer to the shell at opposing sides of the insert.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights