DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-15 are pending. Claims 1, 4-6, 11-13 are amended. Claims 2, 3, and 7-9 are cancelled.
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on May 18, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 4-6, 11-13 have been amended, and claims 2, 3, and 7-9 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 4-6, 10-15 are presently pending in this application with claims 5 and 10-15 being withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings has overcome the drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the specification objections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §112(b) rejections, but introduce others.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §102(a)(1) and §103 rejections, however all claims remain rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) and §103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “a front” and “a rear” three separate times, however claim 1 already recites “a front” and “a rear”. It is unclear if the further recitations of “a front” and “a rear” refer to the same “front” and “rear” of claim 1. It is further unclear if the “front” and “rear” are with respect to the helmet or to each of the particular components.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamata (US 5161261).
Regarding claim 1, Kamata describes a helmet (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a shell (cap body 1) in which a space (see, e.g. Fig. 2) where the head of a user is configured to be placed;
a shield (shield 4) rotatably provided (attached via pivotable mounting means 5 on left and right) to the helmet and having two ends (has a left and right end), and a first protruding part (endplate 16) formed to protrude from both ends;
a first recessed groove (click teeth 37) having a width gradually decreasing from a front toward a rear is formed in each first protruding part (see annotated Fig. 6);
wherein the first recessed groove is formed in the shape of saw teeth (are in the shape of saw teeth inasmuch as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 Kamata describes the helmet of claim 1, wherein a third the first recessed groove is recessed upward or downward (is recessed, see annotated Fig. 6) is formed in the first recessed groove in at least one of its terminal ends.
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 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.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summers et al. (US 7987525).
Regarding claim 6, Katama describes the helmet of claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein a plurality of second protruding parts is formed on the shell;
wherein each of the second protruding parts is formed to have a width gradually decreasing from a front toward a rear;
wherein a second recessed groove is formed in each of the second protruding parts and has a width gradually decreasing from a front toward a rear;
wherein each of the second protruding parts is formed to have a height that is the highest at a central portion and gradually decreases toward a front and a rear;
wherein the plurality of second protruding parts is disposed to be spaced apart at predetermined intervals on the shell.
In related art, Summers describes wherein a plurality of second protruding parts (scoops 160) is formed on the shell;
wherein each of the second protruding parts is formed to have a width gradually decreasing from a front toward a rear (see annotated Fig. 6);
wherein a second recessed groove (see annotated Fig. 1) is formed in each of the second protruding parts and has a width gradually decreasing from a front toward a rear (groove is located between the scoop and the helmet, the groove being largest away from the scoop and zero where the scoop meets the helmet);
wherein each of the second protruding parts is formed to have a height that is the highest at a central portion and gradually decreases toward a front and a rear (see annotated Fig. 3);
wherein the plurality of second protruding parts is disposed to be spaced apart at predetermined intervals on the shell (are spaced).
It would have been obvious to modify Katama to include the scoops of Summers in order to provide a cooling mechanism for the user's head (Summers, col. 4, ll. 50-53).
PNG
media_image2.png
420
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
317
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
485
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights