DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 (Figures 14-16) in the reply filed on 5 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species restriction is improper because the species restriction was exclusively based on Applicant’s figures and not on the basis of the pending claims as stated in 35 U.S.C. §121. This is not found persuasive because species elections are not grouped by claims but by figures, as clearly stated in MPEP 809.02(a), “The species are preferably identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3 or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively”. Further, the entire application contains a number of species that are patentably distinct from one another, as provided by Applicant’s specification in at least paras. 8-35 to list different embodiments among the figures. As such, the recognized divergent matter separating the species is a burden on examination. Applicant also traverses on the ground(s) that Examiner does not provide two aspects to restrict according to MPEP 808: (a) the reasons why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from each other and (b) the reasons why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if the restriction is not required. This is not found persuasive because Examiner presented reasons as to why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from each other and the reasons why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on pages 2-3 of the office action mailed on 4 August 2025. Lastly, Applicant argues the requirement is improper because the application is “substantially [the] same” as the previously examined parent application(s). This is not found persuasive because the propriety of an election of species is determined by the disclosure of the instant application and whether the requirements for an election are met in the instant application. The prosecution history of a related application alone does not preclude a requirement for election where the instant application contains claims/figures drawn to patentably distinct species when there is a serious search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The response filed on 5 January 2026 includes claims 1-4 and 6-20 as amended, claim 5 is canceled, and claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are presented for examination on the merits for elected Species 2 (Figures 14-16).
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 5 January 2026 and entered. These drawings are acceptable to enter but raise the following objections:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: characters 518, 530, 531, 570b, 571, 580, 584a, 584b, 586a, 586b, 588a, 590a, 592a. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amended specification received on 5 January 2026 and entered. The specification is acceptable to enter but raise the following objections because of the following informalities: the numbering of amended paragraphs [0001]-[0027] are inconsistent with the originally filed specification. The paragraph numbers should be consistent with the numerical order following originally filed paragraphs [0001]-[0007].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 17is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 17: the recitation “the helmet comprising” should be amended to read “the American football helmet comprising”;
Claim 1: the recitation “a continuous gap formed thorough the shell” should be amended to read “a continuous gap formed through the shell”;
Claim 1: the recitation “wherein an upper extent the left impact attenuation member is bounded” should be amended to read “wherein an upper extent of the left impact attenuation member is bounded”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10, 13, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoying discloses an American football helmet to be worn by a wearer (10; Figs. 1-4; para. 4 discloses “The present invention relates to protective sports equipment”, and therefore, is capable of being used/worn as an American football helmet; Examiner submits “an American football helmet” is an intended use recitation for claim 10 and dependent claims hereinafter; The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).), the helmet comprising:
a shell (12; para. 24) including: a left side portion (24) with an ear opening (34a) formed therein (Fig. 1);
a lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
an upper left transverse sidewall that extends outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a lower left transverse sidewall that extends outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a central band (42) that extends from a front portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below), past a crown portion of the shell and towards a rear portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
431
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a left impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 below) located adjacent to an extent of the raised central band (see annotated Fig. 3 below) and extending from the left side portion of the shell into an extent of the rear portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein an upper extent the left impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 below) is bounded by a continuous gap formed thorough the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the plane of the annotated continuous gap is a “continuous gap formed through the shell” because the annotated portion is below the plane of the rest of shell 12 on the sides outside of the annotated portion, the sides are raised areas of shell 12 as disclosed in para. 9; the annotated upper extent of the left impact attenuation member is within the continuous gap, and therefore, “is bounded by” the continuous gap) whereby the left impact attenuation member is elastically deformable when an impact force is received by the left impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the annotated left impact attenuation member is part of shell 12, and therefore, the left impact attenuation member is capable of being elastically deformed when an impact force is received; para. 24 discloses that shell 12 is made of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), which is capable of being elastically deformed to a degree because it is a type of polymer);
and a ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 3 below) arranged along an upper edge of the left impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the annotated left impact attenuation member has an upper edge that is directly adjacent to the annotated ventilation opening).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hoying discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of ventilation openings arranged along an upper edge of the left impact attenuation member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a second/plurality of ventilation openings along an upper edge of the left impact attenuation member of Hoying in order to allow for better air flow to the wearer’s head during warm temperatures, since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 4, wherein the lower ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection and Fig. 2 below of claim 4 rejection).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 4, wherein the lower ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection and Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
410
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 1, wherein the shell further includes a lower ventilation opening positioned between the lower transverse sidewall and the lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection and Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 1, wherein the continuous gap includes an enlarged end portion (see annotated Fig. below) that has a width that is greater (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the circled enlarged end portion has a diameter from left to right of the continuous gap, and therefore, has a width greater than the intermediate portion) than a width at an intermediate portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below) of the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the annotated intermediate portion has a diameter from left to right of the intermediate portion, and therefore, a width; the width at the enlarged end portion is greater than the width at the intermediate portion).
PNG
media_image5.png
522
459
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 1, wherein the front portion of the shell has a structural modulus that is different than a structural modulus of the crown portion of the shell (see annotated Figs. 1 and 3 of claim 1 rejection, where the front portion includes the left impact attenuation member, which is a perforation of shell 12, and therefore, would have a different structural modulus from the crown portion of shell 12 without perforations).
Regarding claim 10, Hoying discloses an American football helmet to be worn by a wearer (10; Figs. 1-4; para. 4 discloses “The present invention relates to protective sports equipment”, and therefore, is capable of being used/worn as an American football helmet; Examiner submits “an American football helmet” is an intended use recitation for claim 10 and dependent claims hereinafter; The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).), the helmet comprising:
a shell (12; para. 24) including: a left side portion (24) with an ear opening (34a) formed therein (Fig. 1);
a lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
an upper transverse sidewall that extends outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a lower transverse sidewall that extends outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a raised band (42) that is integrally formed in the shell (Fig. 1; para. 23) and has: a frontal height defined at a first location that extends between the upper transverse sidewall and lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the first location is between the upper and lower transverse sidewall as depicted by the dotted black vertical line within 42, and the frontal height is defined as shown), and a rear height defined at a second location that extends between the upper transverse sidewall and lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the between the upper and lower transverse sidewall is a rear height as depicted by the dotted gray vertical line within 42), and wherein the rear height is greater than the frontal height (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
and a ventilation opening formed in the shell (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and positioned between the lower transverse sidewall and the lower shell edge (see annotated Figs. 1-2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
403
609
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
446
596
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 10, wherein the shell further includes a front portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below) having a structural modulus that is different than a structural modulus of a crown portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the structural modulus of the front portion is different than the structural modulus of the crown portion because the crown portion includes a gap; Examiner notes the term “portion” is very broad and merely means “a part of a whole; fraction”, see defn. no. 1 of Collins English Dictionary- Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition, 2014, entry via thefreedictionary.com/portion, and therefore, the annotated crown portion below of Hoying meets the limitation inasmuch as claimed).
PNG
media_image8.png
516
481
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 10, wherein the shell further includes: a front portion (22; Examiner notes the term “portion” is very broad and merely means “a part of a whole; fraction”, see defn. no. 1 of Collins English Dictionary- Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition, 2014, entry via thefreedictionary.com/portion, and therefore, 22 of Hoying meets the limitation inasmuch as claimed) having a lower frontal shell region (40) that is adjacent a lower frontal edge of the shell (edge of 38; Fig. 1, where 40 is adjacent to the edge of 38);
a continuous gap formed through the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the plane of the annotated portion is a “continuous gap formed through the shell” because the annotated portion is below the plane of the rest of shell 12 on the sides outside of the annotated portion, the sides are raised areas of shell 12 as disclosed in para. 9; Fig. 3 shows the continuous gap above 40), and wherein the continuous gap has a frontal segment that extends towards the lower frontal edge of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the annotated frontal segment extends left and right towards the edge of 38);
and an impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 below) located: (i) between the left side portion and a crown portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and (ii) above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and wherein an extent of the impact attenuation member is positioned adjacent to the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
522
549
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Hoying discloses an American football helmet to be worn by a wearer (10; Figs. 1-4; para. 4 discloses “The present invention relates to protective sports equipment”, and therefore, is capable of being used/worn as an American football helmet; Examiner submits “an American football helmet” is an intended use recitation for claim 10 and dependent claims hereinafter; The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).), the helmet comprising:
a shell (para. 24) including: a left side portion (24) having a left ear opening (34a);
lower shell edge (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 10);
a lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 10) that extends: (i) outward from the shell (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 10), and (ii) upward and rearward from a reference point (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 10), wherein said reference point is both contained in the left side portion of the shell and positioned above the left ear opening (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 10);
and a ventilation opening formed in the shell (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 10) and positioned between the lower shell edge and the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 10), and wherein said ventilation opening includes a length that is greater than a height of the ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 10, where the annotated upper edge includes a length, and the length is greater than the height of the annotated ventilation opening).
Regarding claim 20, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 17, wherein the shell further includes: a front portion (22; Examiner notes the term “portion” is very broad and merely means “a part of a whole; fraction”, see defn. no. 1 of Collins English Dictionary- Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition, 2014, entry via thefreedictionary.com/portion, and therefore, 22 of Hoying meets the limitation inasmuch as claimed) having a lower frontal shell region (40) that is adjacent a lower frontal edge of the shell (edge of 38; Fig. 1, where 40 is adjacent to the edge of 38);
a continuous gap formed through the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the plane of the annotated portion is a “continuous gap formed through the shell” because the annotated portion is below the plane of the rest of shell 12 on the sides outside of the annotated portion, the sides are raised areas of shell 12 as disclosed in para. 9; Fig. 3 shows the continuous gap above 40), and wherein the continuous gap has a frontal segment that extends towards the lower frontal edge of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where the annotated frontal segment extends left and right towards the edge of 38);
and an impact attenuation member (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 16 rejection) located: (i) between the left side portion and a crown portion of the shell (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 16 rejection), and (ii) positioned above the lower frontal shell region (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 16 rejection), and wherein an extent of the impact attenuation member is positioned adjacent to the continuous gap (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 16 rejection).
Claim(s) 11-12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1), in view of Brine, III et al. (US 2009/0178184 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 10, wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the lower extent is the raised portion of 42 from 10).
PNG
media_image10.png
445
472
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
291
395
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches a helmet (10) with a ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image12.png
626
651
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper edge of the ventilation of opening of Hoying to be substantially parallel with the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 12, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 10,
wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 10 rejection, where the longitudinal centerline is at the upper edge of the ventilation opening) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 11 rejection).
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 11 rejection where the longitudinal centerline is the upper edge of the ventilation opening between the left and right edges) that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 11 rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the longitudinal centerline of the ventilation of opening of Hoying that is substantially parallel with the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 18, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 17, wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 10 rejection) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 11 rejection, where the lower extent is the raised portion of 42 from 10).
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches a helmet (10) with a ventilation opening (see annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the ventilation opening includes an upper edge that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 11 rejection above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper edge of the ventilation of opening of Hoying to be substantially parallel with the lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall, as taught by Brine, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 19, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 17, wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 10 rejection, where the longitudinal centerline is at the upper edge of the ventilation opening) and a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 11 rejection).
Hoying does not directly disclose wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline that is substantially parallel to a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall.
However, Brine teaches wherein the ventilation opening includes a longitudinal centerline (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 11 rejection where the longitudinal centerline is the upper edge of the ventilation opening between the left and right edges) that is substantially parallel with a lower extent of the lower transverse sidewall (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 11 rejection).
Claim(s) 8-9, , and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoying et al. (US 2011/0047680 A1), in view of Booher, Sr. et al. (US 2017/0135433 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 1, wherein the continuous gap comprises a first gap portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 14 rejection below), a second gap portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 14 rejection below), a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first gap portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 14 rejection below), and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second gap portion (see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 14 rejection below).
Hoying does not directly disclose the continuous gap comprises a first enlarged gap portion, a second enlarged gap portion, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first enlarged gap portion, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second enlarged gap portion.
However, Booher teaches a helmet (200, Fig. 2) with a gap (218) is comprised of: a first enlarged gap portion (left 262), a second enlarged gap portion (right 262), a first substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a left segment of 218 is a first substantially linear segment) that extends from said first enlarged gap portion (Fig. 2), and a second substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a right segment of 218 is a second substantially linear segment) that extends from said second enlarged gap portion (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the continuous gap, including: a first gap portion, a second gap portion of Hoying to include a first enlarged gap portion, a second enlarged gap portion, as taught by Booher, in order to provide additional stress relief/fractures to the helmet shell during impact (para. 32). When in combination, Hoying and Booher disclose the gap including: a first enlarged gap portion, a second enlarged gap portion, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first enlarged gap portion, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second enlarged gap portion.
Regarding claim 9, when in combination, Hoying and Booher disclose the American football helmet of claim 8, wherein the first substantially linear segment has a width (Hoying: see annotated Fig. 3 of claim 14 rejection, where the width runs vertically in the orientation as shown for the first substantially linear segment), and the first enlarged gap portion has a width that is larger than the width of the first substantially linear segment (of Hoying and as evidenced by Booher: Fig. 2, where left 262 has a width larger than the width of Hoying’s first substantially linear segment).
Regarding claim 14, Hoying discloses the American football helmet of claim 10, wherein the shell includes a lower frontal shell region (40) that is positioned adjacent and above a lower frontal edge of the shell (edge of 38; Fig. 1, where 40 is adjacent to and above the edge of 38);
and wherein the shell further includes a gap that is formed through the shell and above the lower frontal shell region (Fig. 3; annotated Fig. 3 below), and the gap including: a first gap portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below), a second gap portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below), a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first gap portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second gap portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image13.png
130
342
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
248
494
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Hoying does not directly disclose the gap including: a first enlarged gap portion, a second enlarged gap portion, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first enlarged gap portion, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second enlarged gap portion.
However, Booher teaches a helmet (200, Fig. 2) with a gap (218) is comprised of: a first enlarged gap portion (left 262), a second enlarged gap portion (right 262), a first substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a left segment of 218 is a first substantially linear segment) that extends from said first enlarged gap portion (Fig. 2), and a second substantially linear segment (Fig. 2, where a right segment of 218 is a second substantially linear segment) that extends from said second enlarged gap portion (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap, including: a first gap portion, a second gap portion of Hoying to include a first enlarged gap portion, a second enlarged gap portion, as taught by Booher, in order to provide additional stress relief/fractures to the helmet shell during impact (para. 32). When in combination, Hoying and Booher disclose the gap including: a first enlarged gap portion, a second enlarged gap portion, a first substantially linear segment that extends from said first enlarged gap portion, and a second substantially linear segment that extends from said second enlarged gap portion.
Regarding claim 15, when in combination, Hoying and Booher disclose the American football helmet of claim 14, wherein the first substantially linear segment has a width (Hoying: see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 14 rejection shows the first substantially linear segment with a width; Booher: Fig. 2 shows the first substantially linear segment with a width) and the first enlarged gap portion has a width that is larger than the width of the first substantially linear segment (of Hoying as evidenced by Booher: Fig. 2, where left 262 has a width that is larger than the width of the left segment of 218).
Conclusion
1515The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See similar helmet structures in the PTO-892 form attached to this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights