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 response of 10/15/25 has been received. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13 are amended. Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending. A specification amendment was also filed with the response and is entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: delete “n” in line 3 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, 4, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Phipps et al. (U.S. 9,879,741). Phipps discloses the invention as claimed. Phipps teaches a helmet impact assembly (Fig.6) comprising an outer shell 102, an inner lining 104 (inner layer 104 can include padding 130 or a soft inner surface conforming to the head of a user), a head spring interface assembly (interface geometry as in col.6, lines 49-51) attached to the inner lining 104 and constructed and arranged for absorption and transference of forces to the head to add protection from brain injury to a user, wherein the head spring interface assembly is further comprised of a plurality of springs 106 oriented to displace in tension upon impact and a plurality of head spring interfaces, the interface assembly connects the plurality of springs to the outer shell through a plurality of attachment points, as the interface geometry is disclosed in col.6, lines 49-51 as “The spring can have hooks, eyes, or other interface geometry at the ends to attach to layers 102 and 104.” Springs 106 are under tension along their longitudinal axis and are further stretched (and remain in tension) as a result of an impact occurring on the opposite side of the helmet 100 as in col.4, lines 33-36.
For claim 3, the inner lining 104 and the outer shell 102 are spaced apart at a predetermined distance by the plurality of springs 106 thereby maximizing the distance to increase the time of impact thereby reducing the force to the brain.
For claim 4, the plurality of springs 106 are constructed and arranged to displace upon impact when rotational acceleration occurs, wherein the plurality of springs 106 that are in the same direction for rotation to go into slack and the plurality of springs 106 in the opposite direction of rotation displace as Phipps teaches an equivalent structure with springs 106 arranged around at intervals between the inner lining and outer shell, and the claim doesn’t provide further structural details of the springs that distinguish from the springs as set forth in claim 1.
For claim 8, Phipps teaches a plurality of bounce reducing springs 106 positioned between the plurality of head spring interfaces and the outer shell 102 constructed and arranged to further prevent the impact of the skull with the outer shell 102. Phipps’ springs 106 are considered as bounce reducing springs as they are tensioned along their length to reduce any bounce between the outer shell 102 and inner lining 104.
For claim 12, Phipps teaches an impact helmet assembly comprising an outer shell 102, an inner lining 104, a plurality of springs 106 attached to the inner lining constructed and arranged for absorption and transference of forces to the head to add protection from brain injury to a user, wherein the plurality of springs 106 are attached to the outer shell through a plurality of attachment points (col.6, lines 49-51 disclose “The spring can have hooks, eyes, or other interface geometry at the ends to attach to layers 102 and 104”) oriented to displace in tension upon any impact.
For claim 13, the inner lining 104 and outer shell 102 are spaced apart at a predetermined distance by the plurality of springs thereby maximizing the distance to increase the time of impact thereby reducing the force to the brain.
For claim 14, the plurality of springs 106 are constructed and arranged to displace upon impact when rotational acceleration occurs, wherein the plurality of springs that are in the same direction for rotation to go into slack and the plurality of springs in the opposite direction of rotation displace. as Phipps teaches an equivalent structure with springs 106 arranged around at intervals between the inner lining and outer shell, and the claim doesn’t provide further structural details of the springs that distinguish from the springs as set forth in claim 1.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phipps ‘741 in view of Cecchi ‘095. Phipps discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Phipps doesn’t teach the head spring interfaces are constructed having a breakpoint that allows said plurality of springs to release and travel towards the outer shell plurality of attachment points in the event of failure, thereby preventing an injury to the user’s head. Cecchi teaches a helmet 300 with connectors connecting the outer shell 308 and inner surface 304, with the connectors designed to break at a predetermined force. Paragraph 50 further discloses the inner surfaces of the helmet may be connected by a material intended to break at a predetermined force and the breakage of the material may function as a visible signal that it’s time to replace the helmet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Phipps’ head spring interfaces such that they are constructed to have a breakpoint that allows the plurality of springs to release and travel towards the outer shell plurality of attachment points in the event of failure, thereby preventing an injury to the user’s head, as Cecchi teaches that the breakpoint feature is known in the helmet art and provides a visible indication to the helmet wearer that the helmet’s structural integrity is compromised and should be replaced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered. The claim rejections are revised with regard to McDermott and Phipps is used as a base reference for all claims. For claims 12-14, Applicant submits that Phipps doesn’t teach the helmet assembly displaces in tension to absorb forces upon impact. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Phipps teaches springs in tension along their longitudinal axes, the springs capable of displacing in tension to absorb forces upon impact, as the springs can elongate as a result of an impact occurring on the opposite side of the helmet 100. Column 4, lines 33-36 disclose “In one preferred embodiment, all of the connectors 106 are under tension such that each is further stretched as a result of an impact occurring on the opposite side of the helmet 100.”
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732