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 amendments filed with the written response received on 10/14/2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-2, 12-15, 18 and 21 have been amended; claims 3-4 and 16-17 are canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-15, and 18-21 are pending in this application.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 06/04/2025 are hereby withdrawn: the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Applicant's arguments, which appear to be drawn only to newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection.
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, 5, 7-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,906,546 A to Gooding in view of US 2022/0225720 A1 to Frieder, and evidenced by US 4,106,127 A to Marangoni.
For claim 1, Gooding discloses a helmet liner for a helmet shell (inner layer shell section 116) the helmet liner comprising: a peripheral wall (lowermost periphery of inner layer shell section 116) configured to abut an inner surface of the helmet shell (see fig. 12 wherein the lower most periphery of inner layer shell section 116 is configured to abut outer layer shell section 114 by edge molding 20 and spacer 115); and
a bonnet structure (remaining body portion of inner layer shell section 116) configured to receive a head of a wearer (helmet 10 comprising inner layer shell section 116 is headgear that is configured to receive a head of a wearer; col. 3, lines 1-5) and coupled to the peripheral wall (as best understood by applicant’s disclosure, remaining body portion of inner layer shell section 116 is integrally coupled to lowermost peripheral portion of inner layer shell section 116) and configured to be spaced from the inner surface of the helmet shell (shell section 114 and 116 are in spaced relation, fig. 12).
Gooding does not specifically disclose the bonnet structure is a auxetic lattice sheet structure that is configured to undergo tensile deformation in response to an impact event occurring at the helmet shell such that the bonnet auxetic lattice sheet structure expands in thickness and increases the space from the inner surface of the helmet shell.
However, attention is directed to Frieder teaching a liner for a helmet (abstract of Frieder). Specifically, Frieder teaches the impact attenuation liner includes lattice structure (102) made of polycarbonate having cells (104) arranged in an auxetic geometry for purposes of increasing specific energy absorption in localized area and that has a negative Poisson's ratio so, when stretched, the auxetic materials become thicker (as opposed to thinner) in a direction perpendicular to the applied force (paras 0067, 0076 and 0084 of Frieder).
With respect to the tensile deformation, Gooding also teaches the shell portions are made of polycarbonate (col. 3, lines 13-16 of Gooding). Attention is also directed to Marangoni teaching a suspension element for a helmet (abstract of Marangoni) that is configured to permanently deform under a specific applied load such that the element undergoes plastic deformation (col. 2, lines 39-55 of Marangoni). Notably, Marangoni teaches the plastic used to performed said function may also comprise polycarbonate (col. 2, line 4 of Marangoni). As such, Marangoni provides evidence that polycarbonate is readily capable of exhibiting tensile deformation since it is known in the art that polycarbonate, when subjected to a specific load, is capable of undergoing permanent plastic deformation to protect the wearer of a helmet by absorbing some of the energy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Gooding would be modified wherein the bonnet structure is a auxetic lattice sheet structure that is configured to undergo tensile deformation in response to an impact event occurring at the helmet shell such that the bonnet auxetic lattice sheet structure expands in thickness and increases the space from the inner surface of the helmet shell, as taught by Frieder and evidenced by Marangoni, for purposes of increasing specific energy absorption in localized area and is capable of undergoing permanent plastic deformation to protect the wearer of a helmet by absorbing incoming impact energy (paras 0067, 0076 and 0084 of Frieder) (col. 2, lines 39-55 of Marangoni).
For claim 2, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, wherein the auxetic lattice sheet structure defines a plurality of vents (Gooding, as modified by Frieder, would comprise vents in the lattice structure; see para 0081 of Frieder).
For claim 5, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1 further comprising: a plurality of impact attenuation pads coupled to an outer surface of the bonnet (inner supports 15).
For claim 7, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, wherein the helmet liner is custom fit to the contour of a wearer's head (see fig. 1 of Gooding wherein the helmet assembly as a whole is considered as configured to fully align with, and conform to, the curvatures and contour of the wearer’s head).
For claim 8, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the helmet liner is comprised of one or more of: a rigid polyurethane, elastomeric polyurethane, a thermoset polymer, or a combination thereof.
However, attention is again directed to Frieder teaching the lattice structure may comprise polyurethane or polycarbonate or a combination of each (para 0067 of Frieder). Therefore, Frieder teaches both materials have the same function of providing impact attenuation and are known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Gooding would be further modified wherein the polycarbonate material is substituted for a polyurethane material since the modification would amount to a simple substitution of known materials for the same predictable result. In this case, the substitution would yield the predictable result of improving impact attenuation performance (para 0066-0067 of Frieder) without requiring more than ordinary skill in the art to accomplish (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
For claim 9, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, wherein the helmet liner is comprised of one or more of: polyamide, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polycarbonate, polyetherimide (PEI), and polyetherketone (PEEK) (col. 3, lines 13-16 of Gooding).
For claim 10, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the helmet liner is comprised of glass or carbon fiber reinforced composites.
However, attention is again directed to Frieder teaching the lattice structure may comprise polyurethane or carbon reinforced composites or a combination of each (para 0067 of Frieder). Therefore, Frieder teaches both materials have the same function of providing impact attenuation and are known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Gooding would be further modified wherein the polycarbonate material is substituted for a carbon fiber reinforced composite since the modification would amount to a simple substitution of known material components for a predictable result. In this case, the substitution would yield the predictable result of improving impact attenuation performance (para 0066-0067 of Frieder) without requiring more than ordinary skill in the art to accomplish (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
For claim 11, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is comprised of a single layer of material (see fig. 12 of Gooding wherein 116 is a single layer).
For claim 12, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the helmet liner weighs 150 grams or less.
However, Frieder does teach a goal of the provided lattice structure is for an overall reduction of weight of the helmet as a whole (paras 0065, 0069, and 0075 of Frieder). Therefore, Gooding, as modified by Frieder, teaches the general conditions of a light-weight liner, except for the exact weight amount of the liner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Gooding would be further modified wherein the helmet liner weighs 150 grams or less since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable weight range by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05(II)). In this case, there are relevant facts for supporting a modification to the claimed weight range by routine optimization. Specifically, in order to create an open pore structure for providing greater air circulation, and a lighter weight design to improve wearer comfort and prolonged use (paras 0065, 0069, 0075, and 0081 of Frieder). Frieder represents evidence that reducing the weight of a helmet liner is simply adjusting a known parameter through routine optimization and applicant has not demonstrated the exact weight amount would provide any unexpected results.
For claim 13, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, wherein the helmet liner is comprised of a material having an elastic modulus of between 0.75 GPa to 100 GPa (Frieder teaches the impact attenuation liner includes lattice structure (102) made of a material having an elastic modulus between approximately 750 MPa and 100 GPa for purposes of providing a liner with a high specific modulus and exhibiting significant toughness) (para 0067 of Frieder).
For claim 21, Gooding teaches a helmet liner for a helmet shell (inner layer shell section 116), the helmet liner comprising: a peripheral wall (lowermost periphery of inner layer shell section 116) configured to abut an inner surface of the helmet shell (see fig. 12 wherein the lower most periphery of inner layer shell section 116 is configured to abut outer layer shell section 114 by edge molding 20 and spacer 115); and a structure (remaining body portion of inner layer shell section 116) coupled to the peripheral wall (as best understood by applicant’s disclosure, remaining body portion of inner layer shell section 116 is integrally coupled to lowermost peripheral portion of inner layer shell section 116), the structure comprised of a single layer of material (see fig. 12 of Gooding wherein 116 is a single layer) and configured to be spaced from the inner surface of the helmet shell (shell section 114 and 116 are in spaced relation).
Gooding does not specifically disclose the structure is a tensile structure having an auxetic lattice sheet structure; the auxetic lattice sheet structure configured to undergo tensile deformation in response to an impact event occurring at the helmet shell such that the auxetic lattice sheet structure expands in thickness and increases the space from the inner surface of the helmet shell; and wherein the helmet liner weighs 150 grams or less.
However, attention is directed to Frieder teaching an analogous liner for a helmet (abstract of Frieder). Specifically, Frieder teaches the impact attenuation liner includes lattice structure (102) made of polycarbonate having cells (104) arranged in an auxetic geometry for purposes of increasing specific energy absorption in localized area and that has a negative Poisson's ratio so, when stretched, the auxetic materials become thicker (as opposed to thinner) in a direction perpendicular to the applied force (paras 0067, 0076 and 0084 of Frieder).
With respect to the tensile deformation, Gooding does also teach the shell portions are made of polycarbonate (col. 3, lines 13-16 of Gooding). Attention is also directed to Marangoni teaching a suspension element for a helmet (abstract of Marangoni) that is configured to permanently deform under a specific applied load such that the element undergoes plastic deformation (col. 2, lines 39-55 of Marangoni). Notably, Marangoni teaches the plastic used to performed said function may also comprise polycarbonate (col. 2, line 4 of Marangoni). As such, Marangoni provides evidence that polycarbonate is readily capable of exhibiting tensile deformation since it is known in the art that polycarbonate, when subjected to a specific load, is capable of undergoing permanent plastic deformation to protect the wearer of a helmet by absorbing some of the energy, as taught by Marangoni).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Gooding would be modified wherein the structure is a tensile structure having an auxetic lattice sheet structure; the auxetic lattice sheet structure configured to undergo tensile deformation in response to an impact event occurring at the helmet shell such that the auxetic lattice sheet structure expands in thickness and increases the space from the inner surface of the helmet shell, as taught by Frieder and evidenced by Marangoni, for purposes of increasing specific energy absorption in localized area and is capable of undergoing permanent plastic deformation to protect the wearer of a helmet by absorbing incoming impact energy (paras 0067, 0076 and 0084 of Frieder) (col. 2, lines 39-55 of Marangoni).
As modified, Gooding does not specifically disclose the helmet liner weighs 150 grams or less.
However, Frieder does teach a goal of the provided lattice structure is for an overall reduction of weight of the helmet as a whole (paras 0065, 0069, and 0075 of Frieder). Therefore, Gooding, as modified by Frieder, teaches the general conditions of a light-weight liner, except for the exact weight amount. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Gooding would be further modified wherein the helmet liner weighs 150 grams or less since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable weight range by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05(II)). In this case, there are relevant facts for supporting a modification to the claimed weight range by routine optimization. Specifically, in order to create an open pore structure for providing greater air circulation, and a lighter weight design to improve wearer comfort and prolonged use (paras 0065, 0069, 0075, and 0081 of Frieder). Frieder represents evidence that reducing the weight of a helmet liner is simply adjusting a known parameter through routine optimization and applicant has not demonstrated the exact weight amount would provide any unexpected results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding in view of Frieder and evidenced by Marangoni, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,204,998 A to Liu.
For claim 6, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose the helmet liner further comprises one or more bellows protruding outwardly from an outer surface of the bonnet.
However, attention is directed to Liu teaching an analogous helmet and liner (abstract of Liu). Specifically, Liu teaches inner layer (11) with ventilation holes (111) comprises a plurality of cushioning bellows interpreted as a plurality of impact attenuation pads for purposes of dampening the external impact force to prevent a great shock caused by the external force to the wearer's head (col. 1, line 55 to col. 2, line 2 of Liu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the sub-liner of Gooding would be substituted for the cushioning bellow assembly of Liu and protrude from an outer surface of the bonnet for purposes of dampening the external impact force to prevent a great shock caused by the external force to the wearer's head, as taught by Liu (col. 1, line 55 to col. 2, line 2 of Liu).
Claims 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding in view of Frieder and US 2016/0187104 A1 to Khandelwal.
For claim 14, the modified Gooding teaches a helmet (10) for impact attenuation, the helmet comprising: a helmet shell (114) including a material (col. 3, lines 13-16 of Gooding) including an inner surface, an outer surface, and a bottom peripheral edge (inner surface, outer surface, and bottom peripheral edge of 114); and a helmet liner (inner layer shell section 116) comprising: a continuous peripheral wall abutting the inner surface of the helmet shell and extending along the entirety of the bottom peripheral edge of the helmet shell (see fig. 12 wherein the lower most periphery of inner layer shell section 116 is configured to abut outer layer shell section 114 by edge molding 20 and spacer 115); and a bonnet structure (remaining body portion of inner layer shell section 116) coupled to the peripheral wall (as best understood by applicant’s disclosure, remaining body portion of inner layer shell section 116 is integrally coupled to lowermost peripheral portion of inner layer shell section 116) and spaced from the inner surface of the helmet shell by an offset distance (shell section 114 and 116 are in spaced relation).
Gooding does not specifically disclose the helmet shell includes ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE); the bonnet structure has an auxetic lattice sheet structure; and wherein the offset distance is between 0.25 inches to 2.0 inches.
However, with respect to the offset distance, Gooding discloses the general conditions of an air gap (spacing) for imparting a desired degree of resilience and impact strength (col. 3, lines 22-30 of Gooding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Gooding would be modified wherein the air gap offset distance is between 0.25 inches to 2.0 inches since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable weight range by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05(II)). In this case, there are relevant facts for supporting a modification to the claimed offset distance by routine optimization. Specifically, in events of shell deformation due to an impact, the sub-shells do not contact, and therefore, prevents injuries to the top of the head of the wearer. Gooding represents evidence that having a specific sized air gap is a known parameter achievable though routine optimization and applicant has not demonstrated the exact range of offset distances would provide any unexpected results.
The modified Gooding does not specifically disclose the helmet shell material includes ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and the bonnet structure has an auxetic lattice sheet structure.
However, with respect to the shell material, attention is directed to Khandelwal teaching an analogous helmet and liner (para 0063 of Khandelwal). Specifically, Khandelwal teaches the helmet comprises a shell made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fabric for purposes of providing a fragment resistant/trauma resistant/bullet proof material (para 0054 of Khandelwal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Gooding would be further modified wherein the helmet shell material includes ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) for purposes of providing a fragment resistant/trauma resistant/bullet proof material, as taught by Khandelwal (para 0054 of Khandelwal).
The modified Gooding does not specifically disclose the bonnet structure has an auxetic lattice sheet structure.
However, attention is directed to Frieder teaching an analogous liner for a helmet (abstract of Frieder). Specifically, Frieder teaches the impact attenuation liner includes lattice structure (102) made of polycarbonate having cells (104) arranged in an auxetic geometry for purposes of increasing specific energy absorption in localized area and that has a negative Poisson's ratio so, when stretched, the auxetic materials become thicker (as opposed to thinner) in a direction perpendicular to the applied force (paras 0067, 0076 and 0084 of Frieder). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Gooding would be modified wherein the bonnet is an auxetic lattice sheet structure that expands in thickness and increases the space from the inner surface of the helmet shell, as taught by Frieder, for purposes of increasing specific energy absorption in localized area to protect the wearer of a helmet by absorbing incoming impact energy (paras 0067, 0076 and 0084 of Frieder).
For claim 15, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet of claim 14, wherein the auxetic lattice sheet structure defines a plurality of vents (Gooding, as modified by Frieder, would comprise vents in the lattice structure; see para 0081 of Frieder).
For claim 19, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet of claim 14, wherein the helmet liner further includes a plurality of impact attenuation pads coupled to an outer surface of the bonnet and positioned between the helmet liner and the helmet shell (inner supports 15).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding in view of Frieder and Khandelwal, as applied to claim 14 above, and as evidenced by Marangoni.
For claim 18, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet of claim 14, wherein the bonnet is configured to undergo tensile deformation in response to an impact event occurring at the helmet shell such that the auxetic lattice sheet structure expands in thickness and increases the offset distance from the inner surface of the helmet shell (see discussion for claim 14 above and teachings of Frieder).
Further, with respect to the tensile deformation, Gooding does also teach the shell portions are made of polycarbonate (col. 3, lines 13-16 of Gooding). Attention is also directed to Marangoni teaching a suspension element for a helmet (abstract of Marangoni) that is configured to permanently deform under a specific applied load such that the element undergoes plastic deformation (col. 2, lines 39-55 of Marangoni). Notably, Marangoni teaches the plastic used to performed said function may also comprise polycarbonate (col. 2, line 4 of Marangoni). As such, Marangoni provides evidence that polycarbonate is readily capable of exhibiting tensile deformation since it is known in the art that polycarbonate, when subjected to a specific load, is capable of undergoing permanent plastic deformation to protect the wearer of a helmet by absorbing some of the energy, as taught by Marangoni. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the bonnet of Gooding would be expected to undergo tensile deformation in response to an impact event occurring at the helmet shell, as evidenced by Marangoni, for purposes of providing a means for the bonnet components to undergo permanent plastic deformation to protect the wearer of a helmet by absorbing incoming impact energy (col. 2, lines 39-55 of Marangoni).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooding in view of Frieder and Khandelwal, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Liu.
For claim 20, the modified Gooding teaches the helmet liner of claim 14, but does not specifically disclose the helmet liner further comprises one or more bellows protruding outwardly from an outer surface of the bonnet.
However, attention is directed to Liu teaching an analogous helmet and liner (abstract of Liu). Specifically, Liu teaches inner layer (11) with ventilation holes (111) comprises a plurality of cushioning bellows interpreted as a plurality of impact attenuation pads for purposes of dampening the external impact force to prevent a great shock caused by the external force to the wearer's head (col. 1, line 55 to col. 2, line 2 of Liu). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the sub-liner of Gooding would be substituted for the cushioning bellow assembly of Liu and protrude from an outer surface of the bonnet for purposes of dampening the external impact force to prevent a great shock caused by the external force to the wearer's head, as taught by Liu (col. 1, line 55 to col. 2, line 2 of Liu).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERICK I LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:30pm 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 at (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.
/ERICK I LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732