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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 23 March 2026, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1, 3-8, 12-13
Newly Added
21-23
Canceled
15-20
Pending
1-14 and 21-23
Presented for Examination
1-14 and 21-23
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112(a) Rejections
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose the subject matter of claim 1. This is not persuasive. The prior art is found to be obviously modifiable to result in the helmet of claim 1.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected without traverse of Species 1, 5, 8, and 11 shown in FIGS 2, 4, 9-10, and 13 and corresponding to claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 04 November 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-12, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US 8510863 B2) in view of Domanskis et al. (US 20190133235 A1); hereinafter, “Domanskis”.
As to claim 1, Ferguson discloses a hard hat (figures 4 and 7, and col 1 line 60-65 discloses, “a liner for existing helmets and other sports gear”), comprising:
an impact protection layer positioned within the cavity (col 2 line 5-10 discloses, “impact-shock-absorbing material,” see the modification below regarding the cavity), the impact protection layer comprising:
a first piece supported at a first location within the cavity (one of the layers in col 2 line 5-10 which discloses, “The primary components of the impact-shock-absorbing material are one or more layers of a flexible, anisotropic thermoplastic honeycomb material combined with a shear-thickening or dilatant material,” OR a “piece” of the one or more layers); and
a second piece supported at a second location within the cavity (another of the layers in col 2 line 5-10 which discloses, “The primary components of the impact-shock-absorbing material are one or more layers of a flexible, anisotropic thermoplastic honeycomb material combined with a shear-thickening or dilatant material,” OR another “piece” of the one or more layers);
wherein the first and second piece of the impact protection layer have a non-uniform stiffness such that each piece has a first compression axis having a first stiffness and a second compression axis having a second stiffness, and wherein the first stiffness is greater than the second stiffness (col 2 line 9-20 discloses, “The term "anisotropic" as used herein shall mean a material showing different properties as to compressibility in different directions. The terms "shear-thickening" and "dilatant" are used interchangeably hereinafter to denote a material that is flexible under normal circumstances and becomes rigid rapidly and for a brief period of time, when a sudden impact shock is applied to it. The shear thickening, or dilatant, material is a flexible material that becomes rigid for a brief period of time in response to a sudden impact.”).
Ferguson does not disclose “an outer shell comprising: an exterior surface; an interior surface defining a cavity; a crown portion positioned in a central area of the hard hat surrounding a center point; and a bottom portion defining a lower circumference extending along the exterior surface.”
However, this is a known helmet construction.
Domanskis teaches a similar hard hat (“Shock Reducing Helmet,” title) including an outer shell (para. 0009 teaches, “a rigid shell that encloses a shock-absorbing chamber”) comprising:
an exterior surface (fig 6, for example);
an interior surface defining a cavity (fig 6, for example, the cavity is occupied by an impact protection layer/ layer of springs 56);
a crown portion positioned in a central area of the hard hat surrounding a center point (fig 6, for example); and
a bottom portion defining a lower circumference extending along the exterior surface (fig 6, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Domanskis’ outer shell and Ferguson’s inner impact protection layer, for the purpose of providing the intended degree of protection for the wearer.
Ferguson does not disclose the first compression axis is aligned in a direction of a major axis of each piece of the impact protection layer, the major axis generally extending from the center point toward the bottom portion of the outer shell.
With there being a finite number of alignments (i.e., the first compression is in the direction of the major axis or it is not), it would be obviously to try the claimed alignment, and one of ordinary skill would expect the claimed alignment to have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the first compression axis is aligned in a direction of a major axis of each piece of the impact protection layer, the major axis generally extending from the center point toward the bottom portion of the outer shell,” for the purpose of providing the intended protection for the wearer, for example by managing rotational energy and providing greater stiffening against greater impacts, which are known properties of anisotropic materials. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the axes would be chosen depending on the intended end use, to protect against expected impacts.
As to claims 2 and 10, Ferguson as modified does not disclose the first stiffness is at least twice (claim 2) or three times (claim 10) the second stiffness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the first stiffness is at least twice the second stiffness”, such as three times the second stiffness, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the first stiffness is at least twice the second stiffness”, such as three times the second stiffness, for the purpose of providing the intended protection for the wearer.
As to claim 3, Ferguson as modified does not disclose the hard hat of claim 1, wherein the second compression axis is aligned in a direction of a minor axis of each piece of the impact protection layer, the minor axis generally extending in a circumferential direction around the cavity of the outer shell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the second compression axis is aligned in a direction of a minor axis of each piece of the impact protection layer, the minor axis generally extending in a circumferential direction around the cavity of the outer shell,” since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the second compression axis is aligned in a direction of a minor axis of each piece of the impact protection layer, the minor axis generally extending in a circumferential direction around the cavity of the outer shell,” for the purpose of providing the intended protection for the wearer, for example by managing rotational energy and providing greater stiffening against greater impacts, which are known properties of anisotropic materials. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the axes would be chosen depending on the intended end use, to protect against expected impacts.
As to claim 5, Ferguson as modified discloses the hard hat of claim 1, wherein the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer are positioned along the interior surface of the outer shell (this is the result of the combination presented in the rejection of claim 1 above, where Ferguson’s padding is provided with a rigid shell such as Domanskis’, where the impact absorbing layer are provided in the outer shell cavity positioned along the interior surface of the outer shell).
As to claim 9, Ferguson discloses a hard hat (figures 4 and 7, and col 1 line 60-65 discloses, “a liner for existing helmets and other sports gear”), comprising:
an impact protection layer positioned within the cavity (col 2 line 5-10 discloses, “impact-shock-absorbing material,” see the modification below regarding the cavity), the impact protection layer comprising:
a first piece supported at a first location within the cavity (one of the layers in col 2 line 5-10 which discloses, “The primary components of the impact-shock-absorbing material are one or more layers of a flexible, anisotropic thermoplastic honeycomb material combined with a shear-thickening or dilatant material,” OR a “piece” of the one or more layers); and
a second piece supported at a second location within the cavity (another of the layers in col 2 line 5-10 which discloses, “The primary components of the impact-shock-absorbing material are one or more layers of a flexible, anisotropic thermoplastic honeycomb material combined with a shear-thickening or dilatant material,” OR another “piece” of the one or more layers);
wherein the first and second piece of the impact protection layer have a non-uniform stiffness such that each piece has a first compression axis having a first stiffness and a second compression axis having a second stiffness, and wherein the first stiffness is greater than the second stiffness (col 2 line 9-20 discloses, “The term "anisotropic" as used herein shall mean a material showing different properties as to compressibility in different directions. The terms "shear-thickening" and "dilatant" are used interchangeably hereinafter to denote a material that is flexible under normal circumstances and becomes rigid rapidly and for a brief period of time, when a sudden impact shock is applied to it. The shear thickening, or dilatant, material is a flexible material that becomes rigid for a brief period of time in response to a sudden impact.”).
Ferguson does not disclose “an outer shell comprising: an exterior surface; an interior surface defining a cavity; a crown portion positioned in a central area of the hard hat surrounding a center point; and a brim portion defining a lower circumference extending along the exterior surface.”
However, this is a known helmet construction.
Domanskis teaches a similar hard hat (“Shock Reducing Helmet,” title) including an outer shell (para. 0009 teaches, “a rigid shell that encloses a shock-absorbing chamber”) comprising:
an exterior surface (fig 6, for example);
an interior surface defining a cavity (fig 6, for example, the cavity is occupied by an impact protection layer/ layer of springs 56);
a crown portion positioned in a central area of the hard hat surrounding a center point (fig 6, for example); and
a brim portion defining a lower circumference extending along the exterior surface (fig 6, for example; Applicant’s FIG 1 shows the brim 15 is a portion of the lateral side of the shell, and Domanskis’ brim portion is also a portion of the lateral side of the shell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Domanskis’ outer shell and Ferguson’s inner impact protection layer, for the purpose of providing the intended degree of protection for the wearer.
Ferguson does not disclose the first compression axes of the first and second pieces are nonparallel to each other.
With there being a finite number of alignments (i.e., the first compression axes are parallel or they are not), it would be obviously to try the claimed alignment, and one of ordinary skill would expect the claimed alignment to have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the first compression axes of the first and second pieces are nonparallel to each other”, for the purpose of providing the intended protection for the wearer.
As to claim 11, Ferguson as modified does not disclose the hard hat of claim 9, wherein the first compression axis is aligned in a direction extending generally from the center point toward the brim portion of the outer shell and the second compression axis is aligned in a direction extending in a circumferential direction around the cavity of the outer shell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the first compression axis is aligned in a direction extending generally from the center point toward the brim portion of the outer shell and the second compression axis is aligned in a direction extending in a circumferential direction around the cavity of the outer shell”, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the first compression axis is aligned in a direction extending generally from the center point toward the brim portion of the outer shell and the second compression axis is aligned in a direction extending in a circumferential direction around the cavity of the outer shell”, for the purpose of providing the intended protection for the wearer.
As to claim 12, Ferguson as modified discloses the hard hat of claim 9, wherein the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer are positioned along the interior surface of the outer shell such that the first piece and the second piece are flush with the interior surface of the outer shell (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 9 above).
As to claim 21, Ferguson discloses the hard hat of claim 1, wherein the first compression axis is orthogonal to the second compression axis (this is a known property of anisotropic materials).
As to claim 22, Ferguson discloses the hard hat of claim 9, wherein the first piece of the impact protection layer is distinct and separate from the second piece of the impact protection layer (as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above, each layer is a “piece” or there may be a first and second “piece” of each layer that are distinct and separate, at least to the degree disclosed by Applicant, which shows the pieces integrally connected to one another).
As to claim 23, Ferguson discloses the hard hat of claim 22, wherein the first piece of the impact protection layer comprises a first edge and the second piece of the impact protection layer comprises a second edge (see annotated FIG 7 below), and wherein a retention rib is coupled to the interior surface of the outer shell and positioned between the first edge and the second edge (when the exterior of the Ferguson helmet is provided with an outer shell as set forth in the modification presented in the rejection of claim 9 above, the result is the shaded portion in annotated FIG 7 below being coupled to the interior surface of the outer shell, as all of the component parts would be coupled together to form a single helmet).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US 8510863 B2) in view of Domanskis et al. (US 20190133235 A1); hereinafter, “Domanskis” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dera et al. (US 4101983 A).
As to claim 6, Ferguson does not disclose the hard hat of claim 1, further comprising a retention ring coupled to the interior surface of the outer shell, wherein the retention ring retains the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer along the interior surface of the outer shell.
Dera teaches a similar hard hat (helmet, title) including a retention ring coupled to the interior surface of the outer shell (8 is coupled to the interior surface of 1 as shown in FIG 2), wherein the retention ring retains the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer along the interior surface of the outer shell (8 in combination with the other components of the helmet retains pieces of 7 along the interior surface as shown in FIG 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a retention ring, for the purpose of absorbing shock to reduce the chances of fatal fractures of the vertebrae (col 3 line 1-10).
As to claim 7, Ferguson as modified discloses the hard hat of claim 6, wherein the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer are flush with the interior surface of the outer shell (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US 8510863 B2) in view of Domanskis et al. (US 20190133235 A1); hereinafter, “Domanskis” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Theodore et al. (US 3616463 A).
As to claim 4, Ferguson as modified does not disclose the hard hat of claim 1, wherein the first and second pieces of the impact protection layer have a tapered shape such that a width extending in the direction of the minor axis increases along the major axis in a direction toward the bottom portion of the outer shell.
It is noted that Applicant does not define the boundaries of the first and second pieces, so this has been left up to interpretation. It is also noted that this is a known construction for headwear. For example, a known style of baseball cap comprises a plurality of triangular pieces that are tapered such that a width extending in the direction of the minor axis increases along the major axis in a direction toward the bottom portion of the outer shell.
In addition to baseball caps, Theodore discloses a helmet where the first piece and the second piece (segments 6 and/ or 7) of the impact absorbing layer have a tapered shape such that a width extending in the direction of the minor axis increases along the major axis in a direction toward the bottom portion of the outer shell (FIGS 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer have a tapered shape such that a width extending in the direction of the minor axis increases along the major axis in a direction toward the bottom portion of the outer shell” for the purpose of shaping the impact absorbing layer to the interior of the shell and the exterior of the wearer’s head.
As to claim 8, Ferguson does not disclose the hard hat of claim 1, wherein the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer are radially aligned sections extending outward from the crown portion of the outer shell toward the bottom portion.
It is noted that Applicant does not define the boundaries of the first and second pieces, so this has been left up to interpretation. It is also noted that this is a known construction for headwear. For example, a known style of baseball cap comprises a plurality of triangular pieces radially aligned and extending outward from the crown portion/ button toward the bottom portion/ sweatband. This is a known means of forming a flat piece of material into a crown shape to fit the shape of the wearer’s head.
In addition to baseball caps, Theodore discloses a helmet where the first piece and the second piece (segments 6 and/ or 7) of the impact absorbing layer are radially aligned sections extending outward from the crown portion of the outer shell toward the bottom portion (FIGS 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide “the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer are radially aligned sections extending outward from the crown portion of the outer shell toward the bottom portion” for the purpose of shaping the impact absorbing layer to the interior of the shell and the exterior of the wearer’s head.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (US 8510863 B2) in view of Domanskis et al. (US 20190133235 A1); hereinafter, “Domanskis” as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lemelson (US 4075717 A).
As to claim 13, Ferguson does not disclose the hard hat of claim 9, wherein the first piece and the second piece of the impact protection layer have a first thickness positioned at the crown of the outer shell and a second thickness positioned at the brim of the outer shell.
Lemelson teaches a similar hard hat (10) including the impact absorbing layer (16) has a first thickness positioned at the crown of the outer shell and a second thickness positioned at the brim of the outer shell (FIG 1 shows 16 is thickest at the crown and tapers toward the brim/ bottom portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a first and second thickness, for the purpose of providing greater protection at the wearer’s crown while providing thinner material elsewhere to avoid impeding the wearer’s head range of motion.
As to claim 14, Ferguson as modified discloses the hard hat of claim 13, wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 13 above).
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights