DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
2. Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn (US 9,232,827). Penn discloses a baby helmet with a helmet body including a forehead protector (38,198) thereon that includes two pieces of closed cell foam/liner material (204,206) on left and
right sides being connected by an adjustable elastic material/strap (218) that is an integrated
structure, col. 10, lines 33- col. 11, line 11 and as shown in figures 5 and 34. Further, the baby
helmet defines a plurality of air vents (196) therethrough fastened by an adjustable chin strap
(190) as shown in figures 28 and 30. The baby helmet includes an adjustable connecting belt
(190) that connects the left and right sides and about the chin as shown in figure 30. An interior
of the helmet body is provided with a plurality of protruding parts (112, 114) as shown in figure
18. However, Penn does not show the closed foam material connecting the left and right sides.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the
claimed invention that the closed cell foam material on the left and right sides of Penn are
connected to each other by the elastic strap (218) as shown in figure 33 allowing the device to
conform about different sized head.
With regard to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
effective date of the claimed invention that the adjustable connecting chin belt of Penn can
include but not limited to a chin rest, etc. providing proper support to the chin as known in the
helmet art. Furthermore, with regard to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the adjustable connecting chin belt of
Penn with a slide buckle substantially defining a Y shaped configuration as shown in figure 30
can include but not limited a Y-shaped connector, etc. as such fastening means is considered
equivalent in the helmet making art.
With regard to claim 5, col. 7, lines 1-32 of Penn discloses the forehead protector as
shown in figure 5 with strap/belt having elastic ability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the helmet body of
Penn having the forehead protector held by the strap/belt with elastic ability will substantially
allows a position of the forehead protector to be adjustable to fit different sized head.
With regard to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
effective date of the claimed invention that the baby helmet of Penn can be provide but not
limited to fabric layers on inner and outer sides, etc., in order to protect the helmet body from
being damaged or depending on end use thereof
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn as applied to
claim 1 above, and further in view of Bell (EP 581460 A1). Penn discloses the invention as set
forth above except for having the forehead protector with air vents.
Bell discloses an infant helmet fastened by a chin strap (100) having a forehead protector
with vents (12, 14) therethrough as shown in figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the
claimed invention that the forehead protector of Penn can be provided with vents as taught by
Bell in order to keep the wearer comfortable and cool when the device is donned.
Response to Amendment
The amendment and arguments filed on June 13, 2025 has been considered. In view of
such this office action is made FINAL. Applicant argues that the prior art of Penn’827 and Bell
’460 does not disclose an elastic material being an integrated structure that connected two pieces
of foam to easily adjust the head circumference of the helmet and having an interior of the
helmet body with a plurality of protruding protective parts. The examiner respectfully disagrees
since the prior art of Penn discloses a baby helmet having an elastic adjustable strap (218) that is
integrally attached to the helmet as an integrated structure and has a plurality of protruding parts
(112,114) attached to the interior of the helmet body as shown in figure 18. Further, it would
have been obvious that the baby helmet of Penn can be provided with vents as disclosed by the
prior art of Bell’460 for ventilation and keep the wearer cool.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. The prior art references cited on PTO-892 each discloses an infant helmet made of
impact absorbing material.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJASH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am -5pm.
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.
October 10, 2025 /TAJASH D PATEL/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3732