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 of 10/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are presented.
Claim 1 is presented in independent form and is amended.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 9 are amended.
Dependent claims 10-15 are newly presented.
The present office action treats claims 1 and 3-15 on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks of 10/31/2025 (see p. 7-15 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Drawings (p. 7): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s replacement sheet overcomes the drawings objection applied in the previous office action.
Regarding Specification (p. 7-8): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive in part. Although Applicant’s specification amendment, which is entered, remedies the objections to the specification as applied in the previous office action. However, the specification amendment has necessitated a new specification objection; see Specification Objection below.
Regarding Double Patenting (p. 8): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s argument that “Claim 1 as amended...is different than in Claim 7 [of the reference application]” such that “Claim 7 [of the reference application] in view of Obreja cannot support a rejection of claim 1” is found persuasive, and upon review of the present disclosure, the amended claims, and Applicant’s remarks, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in the previous office action are overcome.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (p. 9): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but are moot insofar as the cancelation of claim 2 renders the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 2 as applied in the previous office action moot. Applicant’s further arguments are fully considered and are moot insofar as they are directed to newly amended subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 10-15): Applicant’s arguments are fully 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.
Regarding New Claims (p. 15): Applicant’s arguments are fully 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.
Drawings
A replacement sheet was received on 10/31/2025. This replacement sheet is acceptable and is entered.
Specification Amendment
A specification amendment of 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. This amendment is entered and is objected to.
Specification Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract comprises a redundant word “the” in line 3 (see amended abstract of 10/31/2025).
Changing the phrase “The the solid foam” to --The solid foam-- in line 3 of the abstract of 10/31/2025 would be sufficient to overcome this objection.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Ho, US 2016/0095375, newly cited] in view of [Lalloz, US 4,424,180, previously cited as pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure (refer to the PTO-892 of 07/31/2025)].
Regarding claim 1:
Ho discloses (Figs. 3-5):
A helmet 100 (i.e. “helmet assembly 100”; para 32), comprising
a helmet body 20 (i.e. “body 20”; para 27) that comprises a solid foam (“solid foam”; para 27) of expanded foam particles (“foam granules...heated to expand and combine into the foam filling body 20”; para 27), wherein the solid foam has a varying hardness (owing to the increased hardness of the “higher foaming density” layer “sufficient...hardness...to bear and resist against the...impact force” (para 43) relative to the lower hardness of the subsidiary foaming filling bodies 21 and 22) in at least some regions (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) of the solid foam, wherein a first region (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) has a first hardness (i.e. a hardness of the “higher foaming density” layer “sufficient...hardness...to bear and resist against the...impact force” (para 43); it is noted the first region has the first hardness and also has additional, unclaimed, hardnesses), and a second region (see annotated Fig. 5 – a below) has a second hardness (i.e. a hardness of either subsidiary filling body 21 or 22; it is noted the second region has the second hardness and also has additional, unclaimed, hardnesses), wherein the first and second hardnesses are different (owing to the increased hardness of the “higher foaming density” layer “sufficient...hardness...to bear and resist against the...impact force” (para 43) relative to the lower hardness of the subsidiary foaming filling bodies 21 and 22; the “foaming density of the first subsidiary foam filling body 21, the foam filling body 20 and the second subsidiary foam filling body 22 is varied. (That is, the foaming density of the solid foam material progressively increases from the regions of the geometrical array texture structure 12...and the...array texture structure 32...to the region of the foam filling body). Accordingly, the first subsidiary foam filling body 21, the foam filling body 20 and the second subsidiary foam filling body 22 together form a multilayer texture structure for providing gradually enhanced resistance against external collision or lateral impact pressure”; para 47).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ho does not expressly disclose the solid foam has a varying hardness in at least some regions of the solid foam, wherein the solid foam having the varying hardness has a first material composition throughout each of the regions that have the varying hardness, wherein a first region has a first hardness and has the first material composition, and a second region has a second hardness and has the first material composition, wherein the first and second hardnesses are different.
Ho does not expressly state the same material composition is disposed throughout the regions that have the varying densities. However and in further view of Ho: Ho teaches “In a mold or a molding module (not shown), the solid foam granules are heated to expand and combine into the foam filling body 20” (para 27). Although Ho does not expressly teach this step includes heating solid foam granules of the same material composition to achieve the expansion and combining, one of ordinary skill would have been confronted with a decision as to which material composition to select for the purposes of filling the mold and heating the granules to expand and combine. In the absence of any express teaching in Ho as to how to fill the mold, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that filling it with foam granules of the same material composition throughout the mold could yield the helmet body as claimed.
However, Lalloz teaches and within the context of a helmet component (col. 2 lines 13-15) the filling a mold with the same material composition (i.e. “polystyrene in the form of pre-expanded balls” (col. 3 lines 31-32) so as to yield regions of “variable physical characteristics, such as a greater hardness...with respect to the complete molding or to only part thereof” (col. 1 lines 48-51).
It 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 to have modified the helmet of Ho such that its the solid foam having the varying hardness has a first material composition throughout each of the regions that have the varying hardness, wherein the first region has the first hardness and has the first material composition, and the second region has the second hardness and has the first material composition, wherein the first and second hardnesses are different in order to yield the predictable result of a helmet whose regions are durably bonded to each other due to the similarity in chemical composition of the materials that make up each region.
Regarding claim 3:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Ho further discloses wherein the first and second regions having the varying hardness merge into one another in a materially bonded manner (the “solid foam granules” within the “mold or molding module (not shown)...are heated to expand and combined into...body 20” such that the regions identified in above treatment of claim 1 merge into one another in a materially bonded manner as claimed)
Regarding claim 4:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Ho further discloses wherein the helmet body approximately has a spherical shell shape (Figs. 3-4 and in the same way that element 30 is “in the form of a substantially hemispherical body”; para 29; attention is drawn to the present disclosure’s statement at para [0030] that describes an approximately spherical shell shape is a shape that approximately corresponds to a hemispherical shell)
Regarding claim 5:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 4, as set forth above.
Ho further discloses wherein the varying hardness of the solid foam increases radially outwardly (from the less hard 22 towards the “second-layer or middle-layer structure having sufficient structural strength or hardness to bear and resist against the distributed impact force”; para 43) and/or radially inwardly (from the less hard 21 towards the “second-layer or middle-layer structure having sufficient structural strength or hardness to bear and resist against the distributed impact force”; para 43)
Regarding claim 6:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 4, as set forth above.
Ho further discloses wherein the solid foam has an outer surface layer (see annotated Fig. 5 – b below) that bounds the helmet body radially outwardly, an inner surface layer (see annotated Fig. 5 – b below) that bounds the helmet body radially inwardly, and a core (see annotated Fig. 5 – b below) that is arranged between the outer surface layer and the inner surface layer (as in annotated Fig. 5 – b below; it is noted that in the annotated Fig. 5 – b below, the inner surface layer is disposed above and to the left of the core, and the outer surface layer is disposed below and to the right of the core; it is further noted that “If something is between two things, it has one of the things on one side of it and the other thing on the other side of it”; between. (n.d.) Collins COBUILD English Usage. (1992, 2004, 2011, 2012). Retrieved February 23 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/between), and
wherein at least one of the hardness of the outer surface layer or the hardness of the inner surface layer is greater than the hardness of the core (outer surface layer identified in annotated Fig. 5 – b below is greater than that of core identified hereinbelow due to the increased hardness of the “higher foaming density” layer “sufficient...hardness...to bear and resist against the...impact force” (para 43) relative to the lower hardness of the subsidiary foaming filling bodies 21 and 22; the “foaming density of the first subsidiary foam filling body 21, the foam filling body 20 and the second subsidiary foam filling body 22 is varied. (That is, the foaming density of the solid foam material progressively increases from the regions of the geometrical array texture structure 12...and the...array texture structure 32...to the region of the foam filling body). Accordingly, the first subsidiary foam filling body 21, the foam filling body 20 and the second subsidiary foam filling body 22 together form a multilayer texture structure for providing gradually enhanced resistance against external collision or lateral impact pressure”; para 47.)
PNG
media_image2.png
772
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Ho further discloses wherein the helmet body approximately has a spherical shell shape (Figs. 3-4 and in the same way that element 30 is “in the form of a substantially hemispherical body”; para 29; attention is drawn to the present disclosure’s statement at para [0030] that describes an approximately spherical shell shape is a shape that approximately corresponds to a hemispherical shell), and wherein the hardness of the solid foam varies in a tangential direction with respect to a center of the spherical shell shape (due to the increased hardness of the “higher foaming density” layer “sufficient...hardness...to bear and resist against the...impact force” (para 43) relative to the lower hardness of the subsidiary foaming filling bodies 21 and 22; the “foaming density of the first subsidiary foam filling body 21, the foam filling body 20 and the second subsidiary foam filling body 22 is varied. (That is, the foaming density of the solid foam material progressively increases from the regions of the geometrical array texture structure 12...and the...array texture structure 32...to the region of the foam filling body). Accordingly, the first subsidiary foam filling body 21, the foam filling body 20 and the second subsidiary foam filling body 22 together form a multilayer texture structure for providing gradually enhanced resistance against external collision or lateral impact pressure”; para 47).
Regarding claim 8:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 7, as set forth above.
Ho further discloses wherein the hardness of the solid foam is greater at ends of a tangential extent (see annotated Fig. 4 – c below) of the helmet body than in regions (see annotated Fig. 4 – c below) therebetween (due to the increased hardness of the “higher foaming density” layer “sufficient...hardness...to bear and resist against the...impact force” (para 43) relative to the lower hardness of the subsidiary foaming filling bodies 21 and 22; the “foaming density of the first subsidiary foam filling body 21, the foam filling body 20 and the second subsidiary foam filling body 22 is varied. (That is, the foaming density of the solid foam material progressively increases from the regions of the geometrical array texture structure 12...and the...array texture structure 32...to the region of the foam filling body). Accordingly, the first subsidiary foam filling body 21, the foam filling body 20 and the second subsidiary foam filling body 22 together form a multilayer texture structure for providing gradually enhanced resistance against external collision or lateral impact pressure”; para 47).
PNG
media_image3.png
737
939
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 7, as set forth above.
Ho further discloses wherein the hardness of the solid foam is lower at ends of a tangential extent (see annotated Fig. 4 – d below) than in regions (see annotated Fig. 4 – d below) therebetween (due to the increased hardness within the regions therebetween of the “higher foaming density” layer “sufficient...hardness...to bear and resist against the...impact force” (para 43) relative to the lower hardness of the subsidiary foaming filling bodies 21 and 22).
PNG
media_image4.png
737
939
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Ho further discloses wherein the helmet is configured as a sports helmet (“sports helmet”; para 27) or a work safety helmet (“safety helmet”; para 27; wherein one can perform engineering work while performing “engineering” (para 27) and, in addition, can perform other work tasks safely while wearing the helmet).
Regarding claim 11:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Ho does not expressly disclose wherein the material composition is defined by a single material.
However and in further view of Lalloz: in Lalloz, the material composition is defined by a single material: (i.e. “polystyrene in the form of pre-expanded balls” (col. 3 lines 31-32).
It 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 to have modified the modified Ho such that its material composition is defined by a single material, as in Lalloz, in order to yield the predicable result of a helmet whose single material is capable of forming good bonds to other portions of the single material within the helmet.
Regarding claim 13:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Ho further meets the limitation wherein the solid foam is continuous in terms of material at positions where the varying hardness changes and does not have an interruption in the material composition of the solid foam (“foam granules...heated to expand and combine into the foam filling body 20” (para 27) such that the solid foam is continuous via the expanded and combined foam granules; in addition, Ho is modified such that the solid foam has the first material composition throughout each of the regions, the first region, and the second region; refer to above treatment of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Ho does not expressly disclose wherein the entire solid foam is made of the first material composition.
However and in further view of Lalloz: in Lalloz, the material composition is defined by a single material: (i.e. “polystyrene in the form of pre-expanded balls” (col. 3 lines 31-32) and therefore an entire solid foam is made from a first material composition (i.e. polystyrene)..
It 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 to have modified the modified Ho such that the entire solid foam is made of the first material composition, as in Lalloz, in order to yield the predicable result of a helmet wherein portions of the entire solid foam are capable of forming good bonds to other portions of the solid foam within the helmet.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Ho, US 2016/0095375] and [Lalloz, US 4,424,180] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Jorg, DE-102020204870-A1, newly cited].
Regarding claim 12:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Ho does not expressly disclose wherein the material composition is a homogeneously distributed mixture of a plurality of materials.
However, Jorg teaches a molded body (“molded body (1)”; Abstract) “from...foam beads” (Abstract) wherein a material composition is a homogeneously distributed mixture of a plurality of materials (i.e. the combined “reinforcing fibers” and “foam material” of p. 3 lines 27-29). Jorg further teaches that to address the problem of poor “strength properties of the particle foam molding” (p. 2 line 35) are addressed by the “interspersed...reinforcing fibers” (p. 2 line 38).
It 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 to have modified the modified Ho such that the material composition is a homogeneously distributed mixture of a plurality of materials in order to strengthen the solid foam, as suggested by Jorg (p. 2 line 38).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Ho, US 2016/0095375] and [Lalloz, US 4,424,180] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Von Dunten, US 2019/0059501, newly cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Ho in view of Lalloz teach The helmet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Ho does not expressly disclose wherein the solid foam defines ventilation openings therethrough, wherein the hardness of the solid foam is higher in regions adjacent the ventilation openings than in regions further away from the ventilation openings.
However, Von Dunten teaches a helmet body 13 wherein said helmet body 13 defines ventilation openings 31 therethrough (Fig. 1) and extending continuously through a thickness thereof (Fig. 1).
It 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 to have modified the modified Ho such that the solid foam defines ventilation openings therethrough, the ventilation openings extending continuously through a thickness of the solid foam, in order yield the predictable result of to permit ventilation of cool air toward a wearer’s warm head and/or warm air away from his warm head and towards the environment.
In adopting the modification, the limitation “wherein the hardness of the solid foam is higher in regions adjacent the ventilation openings than in regions further away from the ventilation openings” would be met; it is noted the terms “adjacent” and “regions” are claimed broadly and that there are many regions of the modified Ho that are “adjacent” to the claimed ventilation openings – including regions that include only a portion of the “higher foaming density” layer that has “sufficient...hardness...to bear and resist against the...impact force” (para 43); in addition, there are other regions—further away from the openings—in the modified Ho that include only a portion of only the first subsidiary 21 and yet other regions—also further away from the openings—in the modified Ho that include only a portion of the second subsidiary 22.
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 GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732