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
This is in response to amendments received on 06/18/26. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 21 and 22 have been newly added. Claims 1-3, 11-14 and 21-22 are addressed herein.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 22 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the originally presented and examined claims are directed to a helmet body, newly added claim 22 is directed to a helmet shell and body, paragraph 0005 details that the invention can be just the helmet body manufactured separately from the shell.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There was no support in the originally filed disclosure for “wherein the solid foam of the helmet body is rigid and structurally stable” as provided in newly added claim 21.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 21 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “wherein the helmet body is a mold body”. Does this require any specific structure? What happens to the particles are they still particles adhered together? Is this a product-by-process limitation? It is unclear what makes the helmet body a “mold body”.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear what is required of or how the “solid foam” relates to the helmet body and the foam particles. How do the particles form a solid foam? Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 21, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “rigid and structurally stable” would require or be limited to, both terms are indefinite. The specification is silent to the terms “rigid” and “structurally stable”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey et al. (US 2020/0181351).
In regard to claim 1, Bailey et al. teaches a helmet (paragraphs 0336, 0341, 0363, 0364), comprising a helmet body composed of at least a first material and a second material different from the first material (paragraphs 0203-0207, second material is second foam particles or paragraphs 0486, 0258, second material is the binding/additive), wherein the helmet body comprises a solid foam of expanded foam particles of the first material (paragraphs 00203-0207), and wherein the helmet body further comprises particles of the second material that have an adhesive connection with at least some of the expanded foam particles of the first material (paragraphs 0203-0207 and 0215 and 0218-0219); wherein the helmet body is a mold body (paragraph 00218-00219, it is noted that the “mold body” language is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 2nd paragraph above, as to what is being required, Bailey et al. teaches the particles being melted, solidified and fused together creating a “mold body”).
In regard to claim 2, Bailey et al. teaches wherein the particles of the second material are joined in a materially bonded manner with at least some of the expanded foam particles of the first material (paragraph 0429, 0215 and 0218-0219).
In regard to claim 3, Bailey et al. teaches wherein the first material is an expandable plastic (paragraph 0429 and 0573).
In regard to claim 11, Bailey et al. teaches wherein the particles of the second material are fibers (paragraph 0486, 0520 and 0258).
In regard to claim 12, Bailey et al. teaches wherein the second material is a glass material or a carbon material (paragraph 0486, 0520 and 0258).
In regard to claim 13, Bailey et al. teaches wherein the helmet body has at least one section in which the particles of the second material are at least partly embedded in the solid foam of expanded foam particles of the first material (paragraphs 0215 and 0218-0219).
In regard to claim 14, Bailey et al. teaches wherein the helmet is configured as a sports helmet or a work safety helmet (see paragraphs 0336, 0341, 0363, 0364 sports or work helmet disclosed).
In regard to claim 21, Bailey et al. teaches a helmet (paragraphs 0336, 0341, 0363, 0364), comprising a helmet body composed of at least a first material and a second material different from the first material (paragraphs 0203-0207, second material is second foam particles or paragraphs 0486, 0258, second material is the binding/additive), wherein the helmet body comprises a solid foam of expanded foam particles of the first material (paragraphs 00203-0207), and wherein the helmet body further comprises particles of the second material that have an adhesive connection with at least some of the expanded foam particles of the first material (paragraphs 0203-0207 and 0215 and 0218-0219); wherein the solid foam of the helmet body is rigid and structurally stable helmet body (paragraph 00218-00219, it is noted that this limitation is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 2nd paragraph as detailed above, as to what is being required, Bailey et al. teaches the particles being melted, solidified and fused together creating a solid foam body that is rigid and structurally stable).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks that Bailey fails to teach a helmet body.
It is noted that Bailey teaches in paragraph 0336, 0341 and 0363 the use of a foam body in a helmet. There is no specific helmet body structure claimed, therefore, any part of a helmet using the foam is the helmet body as broadly recited.
Applicant remarks that Bailey fails to teach “a mold body” as amended into claim 1.
It is noted that the limitation “a mold body” is unclear as to what is required of the helmet body (see 112 2nd paragraph rejection above).
Further, Applicant remarks that Bailey fails to teach the limitations of newly added claim 21, specifically, the limitation detailing the “rigid and structurally stable” foam of the helmet body.
It is noted that claim 21 is rejected as detailed above in the office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights