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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/26 has been entered.
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 2-7, 9-14, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dirt Bike Addicts (Roko Quick Strap Goggle System, Dirt Bike Addicts, found at https://www.dirtbikeaddicts.com/content/threads/roko-quick-strap-goggle-system.2643/, 4/6/2011; hereafter Dirt Bike Addicts). As evidenced by Scotch 77 SDS.
Claim 2: Dirt Bike Addicts is directed towards a method of manufacturing a helmet, (a helmet is modified for final use; see post 1), the method comprising:
spraying a material on an exterior surface of an outside portion of a helmet shell at one or more locations associated with at least one of a mounting attachment and a mounting accessory thereby forming at least one patch of the material to increase friction between the exterior surface of the outside portion of the helmet shell and at least one of the mounting attachment and the mounted accessory (as discussed in Post #1 and the picture, Velcro pads are glued to the outside portion of the helmet for attaching goggles to said helmet and as taught in Post #4, the Velcro pads can be attached using spray adhesive which inherent forms at least one patch of sprayed material that increases the friction between the exterior surface of the outside of the helmet shell and the at least one of the mounting attachment and the mounted accessory).
Claim 3: The material is sprayed directly on the exterior surface at the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material at the one or more location (see Post #4).
Claim 4: The material is sprayed on the exterior surface around the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material around the one or more locations (Post #4).
Claim 5: The material is sprayed on the exterior surface surrounding the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material above the one or more locations (Post #4).
Claim 6: The material is a polymeric material (see pg 3 of Scotch 77 SDS).
Claim 7: The Velcro pads adhere to the surface after application of the adhesive and thus it is apparent that the coefficient of friction of the polymeric material is greater than the exterior surface of the helmet shell.
Claim 9: DBA is directed towards a method of manufacturing a helmet, (a helmet is modified for final use; see post 1), the method comprising:
spraying a material on an exterior surface of an outside portion of a helmet shell at one or more locations associated a mounted accessory thereby forming at least one patch of the material to increase friction between the exterior surface of the outside portion of the helmet shell and the mounted accessory (as discussed in Post #1 and the picture, Velcro pads are glued to the outside portion of the helmet for attaching goggles to said helmet and as taught in Post #4, the Velcro pads can be attached using spray adhesive which inherent forms at least one patch of sprayed material that increases the friction between the exterior surface of the outside of the helmet shell and the mounted accessory).
Claim 10: The material is sprayed directly on the exterior surface at the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material at the one or more location (see Post #4).
Claim 11: The material is sprayed on the exterior surface around the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material around the one or more locations (Post #4).
Claim 12: The material is sprayed on the exterior surface surrounding the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material above the one or more locations (Post #4).
Claim 13: The material is a polymeric material (see pg 3 of Scotch 77 SDS).
Claim 14: The Velcro pads adhere to the surface after application of the adhesive and thus it is apparent that the coefficient of friction of the polymeric material is greater than the exterior surface of the helmet shell.
Claim 16: DBA is directed towards a method of manufacturing a helmet, (a helmet is modified for final use; see post 1), the method comprising:
spraying a material on an exterior surface of an outside portion of a helmet shell at one or more locations associated with at least one of a mounting attachment for an accessory thereby forming at least one patch of the material to increase friction between the exterior surface of the outside portion of the helmet shell and at least one of the mounting attachment (as discussed in Post #1 and the picture, Velcro pads are glued to the outside portion of the helmet for attaching goggles to said helmet and as taught in Post #4, the Velcro pads can be attached using spray adhesive which inherent forms at least one patch of sprayed material that increases the friction between the exterior surface of the outside of the helmet shell and the at least one of the mounting attachment).
Claim 17: The material is sprayed directly on the exterior surface at the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material at the one or more location (see Post #4).
Claim 18: The material is sprayed on the exterior surface around the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material around the one or more locations (Post #4).
Claim 19: The material is sprayed on the exterior surface surrounding the one or more locations thereby forming the at least one patch of the material above the one or more locations (Post #4).
Claim 20: The material is a polymeric material (see pg 3 of Scotch 77 SDS).
Claim 21: The Velcro pads adhere to the surface after application of the adhesive and thus it is apparent that the coefficient of friction of the polymeric material is greater than the exterior surface of the helmet shell.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 8, 15, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirt Bike Addicts as applied above, and further in view of Gearspace.com (Gearspace.com; Adhesive for DIY panels, found at https://gearspace.com/board/low-end-theory/123449-adhesive-diy-panels.html, 5/9/2007; hereafter Gearspace). As evidenced by Scotch 77 SDS.
Claims 8, 15, & 22: Dirt Bike Addicts does not teach masking a first portion of the helmet shell prior to spraying the material to limit application of the material to a second portion of the helmet shell that is left unmasked.
However, Gearspace, which is directed towards do-it-yourself adhesive application (thread title), discloses that overspray is a known problem with spray adhesives and if the you don’t properly mask off areas where the adhesive is not desired you will have undesired tacky areas for years after application (see post #2, pg 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mask off areas of the helmet prior to application of the spray adhesive when practicing the process of Dirt Bike Addicts wherein it is undesired to have the spray adhesive applied because overspray is an art recognized problem and masking would have predictably provided the improvement of prevent said overspray.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights