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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 24, 2025. Claims 1- 20 are pending and examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1- 20 have been examined on the merit.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 9, 11, and 29 do not properly label the three objects under the one Figure. Figure 9, 11 and 29 should have a bracket or lead lines connecting the plurality of figures into which the helmet is assembled/disassembled. Applicant should use a bracket or lead lines to indicate how the relationship of components are connected. See: 37 CFR 1.84(h)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-2, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 5,309,576 to Broersma (herein after "Broersma”).
As to Claim 1, Broersma discloses a helmet (helmet 10, 110 and Figures 1, 3 & 12 and Col. 2 and Lines 33-36; Broersma) comprising: a shell (See Figures 1, 3, 5 & 12 and Col. 2, Lines 58 – 66; Broersma) (Col. 3 and Lines 18-48; Broersma ~ regarding the matrix material being the outer surface 30a. Thereby teaching a shell.); formed from a first material (Col. 2, Lines 34 - 36; Broersma teaching “lower density, foam plastic matrix…”) a recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) extending into the shell (outer surface 30a, 110; Broersma) to a support surface (Figures 3 & 12; Broersma and Cols. 3 & 4, and Lines 18-27 and 20-34 respectively ~ regarding a recess extending into the shell to a support surface (top surface 26b ~ regarding a support surface), wherein the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) has a depth between an outer surface of the shell (outer surface 30a, 110; Broersma. Examiner notes that the prior art discloses a hard shell 48 but clearly states that the hard shell 48 is optional. Col. 2 and Lines 8-12; Broersma teaching ” The helmet body thus formed and strengthened may be received in a hard, outer shell if desired, or it may be employed without such an outer shell.“ Examiner notes that the hard outer shell has not been applied.) (Col. 3 and Lines 18-48; Broersma ~ regarding the shell) and the support surface (top surface 26b ~ regarding a support surface) (Figure 3; Broersma); and an insert (a high density, foam plastic insert 20, 220; Broersma) formed from a second material (Col. 3 & 4 and Lines 7-17, 55-60 respectively; Broersma ~ regarding a second material being a synthetic foam (cellular)), the insert (a high density, foam plastic, synthetic resin foam insert 20, 220; Broersma) having a shape corresponding to a shape of the recess and a thickness equal to the depth of the recess (Figures 3, 5 & 12; Broersma ~ regarding the insert having a shape corresponding to a shape of the recess and a thickness equal to the depth of the recess (Figures 1, 3 & 12; Broersma and Cols. 3 & 4, and Lines 18-27 and 20-34 respectively ~ regarding a recess)), wherein the insert (a high density, foam plastic, synthetic resin foam insert 20, 220; Broersma) is attached at least to the support surface (top surface 26b ~ regarding a support surface) of the recess (Figures 1, 3 & 12; Col. 3 & 4 and Lines 7-17, 55-60 respectively; Broersma;) wherein the first material has a first stiffness that is less than a second stiffness of the second material (Col. 3 and Lines 18-48; Broersma, “Thus, the insert material has greater crush resistance and is stronger and stiffer than the matrix material.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
712
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 2, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) comprises a sidewall (Figure 5; Broersma) that extends around a perimeter of the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) (Figures 3, 5 & 12; Broersma and Cols. 3 & 4, and Lines 18-27 and 20-34 respectively ~ regarding a recess).
As to Claim 9, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 1, further comprising a coating covering the helmet shell (Broersma teaching that a coating covering the helmet shell and the insert includes color, See Col. 4 and Lines 61-63; Broersma “In each of the focuses of the invention described, the inserts may be formed to have color or colors contrasting with the color of the matrix material.”).
As to Claim 10, Broersma disclose the helmet of claim 1, further comprising a coating covering the helmet shell and the insert (Broersma teaching that a coating covering the helmet shell and the insert includes color, See Col. 4 and Lines 61-63; Broersma “In each of the focuses of the invention described, the inserts may be formed to have color or colors contrasting with the color of the matrix material.”).
As to Claim 11, Broersma disclose the helmet of claim 1, further comprising a first coating covering the helmet shell and a second coating covering the insert (Broersma teaching that a coating covering the helmet shell and a second coating covering the insert includes different colors, See Col. 4 and Lines 61-63; Broersma “In each of the focuses of the invention described, the inserts may be formed to have color or colors contrasting with the color of the matrix material.”).
As to Claim 12, Broersma disclose the helmet of claim 1, wherein the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) is formed in a crown of the shell (outer surface 30a, 110; Broersma) (Figure 12; Col. 3 & 4 and Lines 7-17, 55-60 respectively; Broersma, teaching the recess is formed in a crown of the shell.) (Figure 12 and Col. 4, Lines 55-60; Broersma teaches “FIG. 12 shows an insert 220 like insert 20 of FIG. 3, except that the flange 26 is extended laterally in a cosmetically stylized manner, i.e., to define tapered flange zones 226-229, extending forwardly and rearwardly on or in the matrix body 110 of the helmet shown. See vents 225.”).
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.
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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5,309,576 to Broersma (herein after "Broersma”) as to claim 1 above, in view of United States Patent No. 5,867,840 to Hirosawa (herein after "Hirosawa”).
As to Claim 3, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: a first internal surface of the shell; a second internal surface of the shell that is spaced apart from the first internal surface of the shell and an internal insert, wherein the internal insert comprises a recess having a sloped perimeter, the recess having a depth that corresponds to a distance between the first internal surface and the second internal surface.
Hirosawa teaches safety helmets (head covering 10; Hirosawa) having a shell (outer shell 12; Hirosawa ~ regarding shell) with recess (outer recess 34; Hirosawa ~ regarding recess) extending into the shell support and an insert (outer subsidiary liner member ~ regarding insert) and discloses further comprising: a first internal surface of the shell (outer shell 12; Hirosawa ~ regarding shell) (Figures 5 - 7 ~ regarding a first internal surface; Hirosawa); a second internal surface of the shell (outer shell 12; Hirosawa ~ regarding shell) (Figures 5 - 7 ~ regarding a second internal surface; Hirosawa) that is spaced apart from the first internal surface of the shell (Figures 5 - 7 ~ regarding a first internal surface; Hirosawa); and an internal insert (inner subsidiary liner member 33; Hirosawa ~ regarding an internal insert) wherein the internal insert (inner subsidiary liner member 33; Hirosawa ~ regarding an internal insert) comprises a recess (inner recess 31; Hirosawa) having a sloped perimeter (See Figures 5 - 7; Hirosawa regarding wherein the internal insert comprises a recess having a sloped perimeter), the recess having a depth that corresponds to a distance between the first internal surface and the second internal surface (Figures 5 - 7; Hirosawa).
Therefore, based on Hirosawa’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma’s shell to include further comprising: a first internal surface of the shell; a second internal surface of the shell that is spaced apart from the first internal surface of the shell and an internal insert, wherein the internal insert comprises a recess having a sloped perimeter, the recess having a depth that corresponds to a distance between the first internal surface and the second internal surface, as doing so would provide increased head protection for the wearer.
PNG
media_image2.png
866
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 4, Broersma/Hirosawa discloses the helmet of claim 3, wherein the second internal surface (Figures 5 - 7; Hirosawa) has a shape that corresponds to the shape of the recess in the helmet shell (Modified shell as taught by Broersma outer surface 30a, 110; Broersma with outer shell 12; Hirosawa ~ regarding shell) (Figures 5 & 7; Hirosawa).
As to Claim 5, Broersma/Hirosawa disclose the helmet of claim 3, wherein the internal insert (inner subsidiary liner member 33; Hirosawa ~ regarding an internal insert) is formed from a third material (Col. 6 and Lines 8-54; Hirosawa teaching “…inner subsidiary liner member 33 have suitable plastic and elastic deformation rates, so that it is preferable that they are made of foamed plastics, such as polystyrene foam, polypropylene foam, polyethylene foam or the like.”), and wherein the third material has a density that is less than a density of the first material (Col. 6 and Lines 8-54; Hirosawa teaches where the internal insert having a third material has a density of 20-80 g/lit. Broersma teaches where the first material has a density 50-75 gsm/liter. Thereby teaching that at the lower end of the density range the third material has a density that is less than a density of the first material).
As to Claim 6, Broersma/Hirosawa disclose the helmet of claim 3,
wherein the support surface (top surface 26b ~ regarding a support surface; Broersma) of the recess (Figures 1, 3 & 12; Col. 3 & 4 and Lines 7-17, 55-60 respectively; Broersma;) in the helmet shell (Modified shell as taught by Broersma outer surface 30a, 110; Broersma with outer shell 12; Hirosawa ~ regarding shell) comprises an opening (Figures 5 - 7; Hirosawa teaching an opening being the gap above the internal insert.)
PNG
media_image3.png
676
926
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
534
748
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 7, Broersma/Hirosawa disclose the helmet of claim 6, wherein the internal insert comprises a raised area having a shape that corresponds to a shape of the opening (See Figure 5 - 7, internal insert (33) corresponds with the shape of the opening. As illustrated Hirosawa appears to suggest a flange on the edge of internal insert 33 as a raised area), wherein the raised area extends to and corresponds to a shape of the insert (See Figure 5 - 7, internal insert (33) corresponds with the shape of the opening. As illustrated Hirosawa appears to suggest a flange on the edge of internal insert 33 as a raised area).
As to Claim 8, Broersma/Hirosawa disclose the helmet of claim 3, wherein at least one of the insert (synthetic resin foam insert 20, 220; Broersma) and the internal insert is attached to the helmet shell via an adhesive (Col. 3 and Lines 33 -37; Broersma, teaching “The insert may be pre-molded, and then inserted into the matrix 30, to be adhesively (structurally) joined to the surfaces 31, 32 and 33.”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5,309,576 to Broersma (herein after "Broersma”) in view of United States Patent No. 5,867,840 to Hirosawa (herein after "Hirosawa”), as to claim 4 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0007668 to Cech et al. (herein after "Cech”).
As to Claim 16, Broersma/Hirosawa discloses the helmet of claim 4, wherein the first material (Col. 2, Lines 58 – 66; Broersma teaching “The helmet body 10a consists of lightweight, synthetic resin foam…”), the second material (Col. 3 & 4 and Lines 7-17, 55-60 respectively; Broersma ~ regarding a second material being a synthetic foam (cellular)), and the third material (Col. 6 and Lines 8-54; Hirosawa teaching “…inner subsidiary liner member 33 have suitable plastic and elastic deformation rates, so that it is preferable that they are made of foamed plastics, such as polystyrene foam, polypropylene foam, polyethylene foam or the like.”).
Although Broersma/Hirosawa disclose the first material the second material and the third material Broersma/Hirosawa fail to disclose those materials being polycarbonate, carbon fiber, polypropylene foam.
Cech teaches helmet having a shell (110) and having an insert (140) with the shell having a first material and the insert having a second material respectively and discloses being polycarbonate and being carbon fiber (Paragraphs 0036 &0040; Cech, “The helmet shell 110 can include…polycarbonates.” And “The vent adapter 130 can be made of, for example, plastic, fiber reinforced plastic, metal or any other material. The fiber can be a carbon fiber.”).
Therefore, based on Cech’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma’s first and second material respectively to include being polycarbonate and being carbon fiber, as doing so would provide enhanced protection with structural rigidity for the wearer. As this would be the simple substitution of one material for another with the reasonable expectation that one material would perform equally as well as another.
Durocher teaches adjustable helmets and disclose material being expanded polypropylene foam (Paragraph 0057; Durocher teaching material being expanded polypropylene foam).
Therefore, based on Durocher’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma’s third material to include being expanded polypropylene foam, as doing so would provide enhanced fit options by providing improved adjustability and impact protection for the wearer. As this would be the simple substitution of one material for another with the reasonable expectation that one material would perform equally as well as another.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5,309,576 to Broersma (herein after "Broersma”) as to claim 12 and 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0007668 to Cech et al. (herein after "Cech”).
As to Claim 13, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 12, wherein the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) has a width (Figures 5, 7 & 12, Broersma teaching the recess having a width) but fails to disclose a width that widens and then narrows as the recess extends toward a rear of the shell.
Cech teaches helmet with recesses and discloses a width that widens and then narrows as the recess extends toward a rear of the shell (Figures 1 & 2; Cech teaching a recess that has a width that widens and then narrows as the recess extends toward a rear of the shell).
Therefore, based on Cech’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma’s recess to include a width that widens and then narrows as the recess extends toward a rear of the shell, as doing so would provide enhanced design features and improved aesthetics for the wearer. As this would be the simple substitution of one material for another with the reasonable expectation that one material would perform equally as well as another.
As to Claim 14, Broersma disclose the helmet of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the recess includes a pair of laterally extending lobes.
Cech teaches helmet with recesses and discloses wherein the recess includes a pair of laterally extending lobes (Figures 1 & 2; Cech teaching wherein the recess includes a pair of laterally extending lobes).
Therefore, based on Cech’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma’s recess to include wherein the recess includes a pair of laterally extending lobes, as doing so would provide enhanced design features and improved aesthetics for the wearer. As this would be the simple substitution of one recess shape for another with the reasonable expectation that one recess shape would perform equally as well as another.
As to Claim 15, Broersma discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein the first material (Col. 2, Lines 58 – 66; Broersma teaching “The helmet body 10a consists of lightweight, synthetic resin foam…”) and the second material (Col. 3 & 4 and Lines 7-17, 55-60 respectively; Broersma ~ regarding a second material being a synthetic foam (cellular).
Broersma fails to disclose being polycarbonate and being carbon fiber.
Cech teaches helmet having a shell (110) and having an insert (140) with the shell having a first material and the insert having a second material and discloses being polycarbonate and being carbon fiber (Paragraphs 0036 &0040; Cech, “The helmet shell 110 can include…polycarbonates.” And “The vent adapter 130 can be made of, for example, plastic, fiber reinforced plastic, metal or any other material. The fiber can be a carbon fiber.”).
Therefore, based on Cech’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma’s first and second material respectively to include being polycarbonate and being carbon fiber, as doing so would provide enhanced protection with structural rigidity for the wearer. As this would be the simple substitution of one material for another with the reasonable expectation that one material would perform equally as well as another.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5,309,576 to Broersma (herein after "Broersma”) in view of United States Patent No. 5,867,840 to Hirosawa (herein after "Hirosawa”) and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0337408 A1 to Durocher et al. (herein after "Durocher”).
As to Claim 17, Broersma discloses a helmet (helmet 10, 27, 110 and Figures 1, 3 & 12 and Col. 2 and Lines 33-36; Broersma) comprising: a shell (See Figures 1, 3, 5 & 12 and Col. 2, Lines 58 – 66; Broersma) (Col. 3 and Lines 18-48; Broersma ~ regarding the matrix material being the outer surface 30a. Thereby teaching a shell.); formed from a first material (Col. 2, Lines 34 - 36; Broersma teaching “lower density, foam plastic matrix…”); a recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) extending into the shell (inner matrix material 27, 110; Broersma) to a support surface (Figures 3 & 12; Broersma and Cols. 3 & 4, and Lines 18-27 and 20-34 respectively ~ regarding a recess extending into the shell to a support surface (top surface 26b ~ regarding a support surface), the recess including a sidewall (Figure 3; Broersma) that extends around a perimeter of the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma); an insert (a high density, foam plastic, synthetic resin foam insert 20, 220; Broersma) formed from a second material (Col. 3 and Lines 18-48; Broersma, “Thus, the insert material has greater crush resistance and is stronger and stiffer than the matrix material.”), the insert (a high density, foam plastic, synthetic resin foam insert 20, 220; Broersma) having a shape corresponding to a shape of the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) (Figures 3 & 5; Broersma teaching the insert having a shape corresponding to a shape of the recess) and a thickness equal to a height of the sidewall of the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) (Figures 3 & 5; Broersma teaching a thickness equal to a height of the sidewall of the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma)), wherein the insert (a high density, foam plastic, synthetic resin foam insert 20, 220; Broersma) is attached at least to the support surface (top surface 26b ~ regarding a support surface; Broersma) of the recess (recess 28, 29; Broersma) (Figures 3 & 5; Broersma); and wherein the first material has a first stiffness that is less than a second stiffness of the second material (Col. 3 and Lines 18-48; Broersma, “Thus, the insert material has greater crush resistance and is stronger and stiffer than the matrix material.”).
Broersma fails to disclose an internal insert formed from a third material, the internal insert having a recess corresponding to a shape of a raised surface of an interior surface of the helmet shell, wherein shape the raised surface corresponds to the shape of the recess in the helmet shell; wherein the third material has a third stiffness that is less than the first stiffness and the second stiffness.
Hirosawa teaches safety helmets (head covering 10; Hirosawa) having a shell (outer shell 12; Hirosawa ~ regarding shell) with recess (outer recess 34; Hirosawa ~ regarding recess) extending into the shell support and an insert (outer subsidiary liner member ~ regarding insert) and discloses an internal insert (inner subsidiary liner member 33; Hirosawa ~ regarding an internal insert) formed from a third material (Col. 6 and Lines 8-54; Hirosawa teaching “…inner subsidiary liner member 33 have suitable plastic and elastic deformation rates, so that it is preferable that they are made of foamed plastics, such as polystyrene foam, polypropylene foam, polyethylene foam or the like.”), the internal insert (inner subsidiary liner member 33; Hirosawa ~ regarding an internal insert) having a recess (Figure 7; Hirosawa) corresponding to a shape of a raised surface of an interior surface of the helmet shell (Figure 5; Hirosawa), wherein shape the raised surface corresponds to the shape of the recess in the helmet shell (Figures 5-7; Hirosawa).
Therefore, based on Hirosawa teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma’s an internal insert formed from a third material, the internal insert having a recess corresponding to a shape of a raised surface of an interior surface of the helmet shell, wherein shape the raised surface corresponds to the shape of the recess in the helmet shell, as doing so would provide increased head protection for the wearer.
PNG
media_image5.png
636
871
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Durocher teaches adjustable helmets and disclose material being expanded polypropylene foam (Paragraph 0057; Durocher teaching material being expanded polypropylene foam) and discloses wherein the third material has a third stiffness that is less than the first stiffness and the second stiffness (Paragraphs 0105, 0130-0140; Durocher teaching “In this example of implementation, a material M3 of the underlying pad 36j is different from the materials M1, M2 of the padding layers 571,572 of the self-adjustable pad 36i. The material M3 of the underlying pad 36j and the materials M1 , M2 of the padding layers 571, 572 of the self-adjustable pad 36, differ in one or more properties such as density, stiffness, resilience, etc. In this example, the material M3 of the underlying pad 361 is expanded microspheres ( e.g., Expancel™ microspheres commercialized by Akzo Nobel). The material M3 may be other suitable materials in other embodiments.”)
Therefore, based on Durocher’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma/Hirosawa’s material to include wherein the third material has a third stiffness that is less than the first stiffness and the second stiffness, as doing so would provide greater comfort for the user and/or better fit.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5,309,576 to Broersma (herein after "Broersma”) in view of United States Patent No. 5,867,840 to Hirosawa (herein after "Hirosawa”) and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0337408 A1 to Durocher et al. (herein after "Durocher”), as to claim 18 above and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0007668 to Cech et al. (herein after "Cech”).
As to Claim 18, Broersma/Hirosawa/Durocher disclose the helmet of claim 17, wherein the first material (Col. 2, Lines 58 – 66; Broersma teaching “The helmet body 10a consists of lightweight, synthetic resin foam…”), the second material (Col. 3 & 4 and Lines 7-17, 55-60 respectively; Broersma ~ regarding a second material being a synthetic foam (cellular)), and the third material (Col. 6 and Lines 8-54; modified Hirosawa teaching “…inner subsidiary liner member 33 have suitable plastic and elastic deformation rates, so that it is preferable that they are made of foamed plastics, such as polystyrene foam, polypropylene foam, polyethylene foam or the like.” With material taught by Durocher, paragraphs 0105, 0130-0140; Durocher) is expanded polypropylene foam (Paragraph 0057; Durocher teaching material being expanded polypropylene foam).
Broersma/Hirosawa/Durocher fail to disclose being polycarbonate, being carbon fiber.
Cech teaches helmet having a shell (110) and having an insert (140) with the shell having a first material and having a second material respectively and discloses being polycarbonate and being carbon fiber (Paragraphs 0036 &0040; Cech, “The helmet shell 110 can include…polycarbonates.” And “The vent adapter 130 can be made of, for example, plastic, fiber reinforced plastic, metal or any other material. The fiber can be a carbon fiber.”).
Therefore, based on Cech’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma/Hirosawa/Durocher’s first and second material respectively to include being polycarbonate and being carbon fiber, as doing so would provide enhanced protection with structural rigidity for the wearer. As this would be the simple substitution of one material for another with the reasonable expectation that one material would perform equally as well as another.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of United States Patent No. 5,867,840 to Hirosawa (herein after "Hirosawa”).
As to Claim 19, Hirosawa discloses a composite helmet shell (outer shell 12, 15; Hirosawa) comprising: a front (front end 34a; Hirosawa), a rear (lower end 34b; Hirosawa), sides (See Figure 1; Hirosawa teaching the sides of the shell next to straps 11a and 11b), and a crown (Figures 5 & 7; Hirosawa) formed from a single piece of a first material (Col. 4 and Lines 35-50; Hirosawa teaching “Thus, the outer shell 12 may be made from strengthened rigid resin obtained by curing a mixture of reinforcing material, such as glass fiber, carbon fiber…”), wherein at least the crown comprises a recess (34 ~ regarding a recess) (Figures 5 & 7; Hirosawa); an insert (outer subsidiary liner member 35) formed from a second material (Col.11 and Lines 25-41; Hirosawa), the insert (35) having a shape corresponding to a shape of the recess (34 ~ regarding a recess) in the crown (Figures 5 & 7; Hirosawa); and an internal insert (inner subsidiary liner member 33; Hirosawa ~ regarding an internal insert) formed from a third material (Col. 6 and Lines 8-54; Hirosawa teaching “…inner subsidiary liner member 33 have suitable plastic and elastic deformation rates, so that it is preferable that they are made of foamed plastics, such as polystyrene foam, polypropylene foam, polyethylene foam or the like.”), the internal insert (inner subsidiary liner member 33; Hirosawa ~ regarding an internal insert) having a recess (Figure 7; Hirosawa) corresponding to a shape of an interior surface of the helmet shell (Figure 5; Hirosawa).
Although Hirosawa teaches the insert (outer subsidiary liner member 35), Hirosawa doesn’t explicitly disclose the insert being formed from a second material.
A second embodiment of Hirosawa, teaching safety helmets being formed from a second material (Col.11 and Lines 25-41; Hirosawa).
Therefore, based on Hirosawa’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hirosawa’s insert to include being formed from a second material, as doing so would provide improved protective characteristic for the wearer.
PNG
media_image2.png
866
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of United States Patent No. 5,867,840 to Hirosawa (herein after "Hirosawa”) as to claim 19 and in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0337408 A1 to Durocher et al. (herein after "Durocher”).
As to Claim 20, Hirosawa discloses the composite helmet shell of claim 19 wherein: the first material (Col. 4 and Lines 35-50; Hirosawa teaching “Thus, the outer shell 12 may be made from strengthened rigid resin obtained by curing a mixture of reinforcing material, such as glass fiber, carbon fiber…”) the second material (Col.11 and Lines 25-41; Hirosawa (35))(Col. 13 and Lines 7-40; Hirosawa ~ regarding the first density that is less than a second density of the second material.) the third material (Col. 6 and Lines 8-54; Hirosawa teaching “…inner subsidiary liner member 33 have suitable plastic and elastic deformation rates, so that it is preferable that they are made of foamed plastics, such as polystyrene foam, polypropylene foam, polyethylene foam or the like.”).
Hirosawa fails to further disclose has a first density that is less than a second density of the second material has a third density that is less than the first density of the first material; the first material has a first stiffness that is less than a second stiffness of the second material; and the third material has a third stiffness that is less than a first stiffness of the first material.
Durocher teaches adjustable helmets and disclose material being expanded polypropylene foam (Paragraph 0057; Durocher teaching material being expanded polypropylene foam) first material (M1) and discloses having a first density that is less than a second density of the second material has a third density that is less than the first density of the first material (M1)(Paragraph 0105, 0130-0140; Durocher); the first material (M1) has a first stiffness that is less than a second stiffness of the second material (M2) (Paragraph 0105, 0130-0140; Durocher); and the third material (M3) has a third stiffness that is less than a first stiffness of the first material (Paragraphs 0105, 0130-0140; Durocher teaching “In this example of implementation, a material M3 of the underlying pad 36j is different from the materials M1, M2 of the padding layers 571,572 of the self-adjustable pad 36i. The material M3 of the underlying pad 36j and the materials M1 , M2 of the padding layers 571, 572 of the self-adjustable pad 36, differ in one or more properties such as density, stiffness, resilience, etc. In this example, the material M3 of the underlying pad 361 is expanded microspheres ( e.g., Expancel™ microspheres commercialized by Akzo Nobel). The material M3 may be other suitable materials in other embodiments.”).
Therefore, based on Durocher’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Broersma/Hirosawa’s first second and third material to include having a first density that is less than a second density of the second material has a third density that is less than the first density of the first material; the first material has a first stiffness that is less than a second stiffness of the second material; and the third material has a third stiffness that is less than a first stiffness of the first material, as doing so would provide greater comfort for the user and/or better fit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and can be found in PTO-892 for submitted herewith. The cited
prior art reference to Pritz US 20150272257 A1 is of particular relevance to the
claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKWOKWO REDHEAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday7:00 AM to 4:00pm 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 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.
/AKWOKWO OLABISI REDHEAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732