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 .
There is no power of attorney on file for this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/2/2026 has been entered. An amendment was subsequently filed on 1/22/2026, with claims 5 and 20 amended and claims 28-30 newly submitted. Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, 18, 20, 21, and 23-30 are pending.
The specification amendment filed 1/22/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “Fig.19 is a perspective view of a helmet having at least one layer that includes an array of impact absorbing polygonal structures that form a regular tessellate”.
“Figure 24 depicts an embodiment of the invention illustrating a padding layer that is a mesh material.”
“Figure 25 depicts an embodiment of the invention that shows an Armadillo shell embodiment with elastomeric material between honeycomb structures.”
“Figure 25 depicts an embodiment of the invention that shows an Armadillo shell embodiment with elastomeric material 26 between honeycomb structures 23. The helmet 10 incorporates….Other embodiments can be comprised of any suitable material that provides the desirable characteristics and response to impact.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 18/428,756, filed 1/31/2024, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application (see claims 1, 18, and 27 reciting the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures devoid of elastomeric material between the polygonal structures). Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the polygonal structures attenuate impact energy and reduce trauma resulting from impacts to the head.” Please revise to properly recite the intended function of the polygonal structures as follows: “wherein the polygonal structures are configured to attenuate impact energy and reduce trauma resulting from impacts to the head.”
Claim 30 should be revised to recite “comprising a mesh material configured to aid in breathability” to properly recite the intended function of the mesh material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference number “50” is used to indicate “the material between 50 and the hard portions 40,30” in par.111. It’s not clear what is set forth in this sentence. Reference number “50” is used to indicate “external energy absorbing layer 50” and “external padding system 50” in par. 113. Please revise for consistent terminology throughout the specification for a clear understanding.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/26/2025 (Fig.24) and 1/22/2026 (Fig.25). These drawings are not acceptable as they include new matter and are not entered. Newly submitted Figure 24 shows the one or more layers of internal padding or pads as oriented below additional inner layers that are not labeled and appears to illustrate new matter.
Newly submitted Figure 25 is unclear as part of the drawing appears to be a photocopied photograph such that the illustrated details (e.g. specific shapes and relationships between shapes) are unclear and not supported by the originally filed disclosure and are therefore considered as new matter.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures devoid of elastomeric material between the polygonal structures as in claims 1, 18, and 27 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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. Claims 1, 18, and 27 recite the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures are devoid of elastomeric material between the polygonal structures. Claims 2-5, 8-11, and 13 are rejected as dependent from claim 1.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, 18, 21, 23-27, and 29 are 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. Claim 1 recites at least one layer including an array of impact absorbing polygonal structure that form a regular tesselate and being proximate to the outer shell and being breathable and generally porous to provide ventilation. Claim 18 recites at least one layer that includes an array of impact absorbing polygonal structures that form a tessellate and being proximate to the outer shell and being breathable and generally porous to provide ventilation. Claim 21 recites the at least one layer includes an array of impact absorbing polygonal structures that form a regular tessellate and the helmet including mesh material that is breathable and generally porous to provide ventilation. The originally filed disclosure doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of “generally porous” such that it can be determined that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. This rejection may be overcome by amending to recite “porous” or “breathable”.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, 18, 21, 23-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
For claims 1, 18, and 21 the scope of “generally porous” is unclear as the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining to what degree the at least one layer must be porous in order to meet the claimed limitation of “generally porous”. The limitation is met by prior art teaching any degree of porosity or breathability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Ferrara (U.S. 2006/0059606). Claim 20 and its dependents receive the benefit of the effective filing date of prov applications-8/1/2014 and 9/8/2014. Ferrera discloses the invention as claimed. For claim 20, Ferrera teaches a helmet 2 (Figs. 1-3) comprising an outer shell 20; said helmet having at least one layer 24 that includes an array of impact absorbing polygonal structures that form a regular tessellate (par.47 discloses a honeycomb structure with interconnected hexagonal cells) and being proximate to the outer shell 20, the at least one layer configured to provide resistance to an impact force, said at least one layer comprising a shock-absorbing elastomer adapted to withstand the shock of an impact force without permanent deformation, said at least one layer comprising one or more of the following materials: thermoplastic polyurethane (par.44 discloses examples of thermoplastic elastomers including polyurethane blocks), an impact absorbing silicone, a polymer gel, a visco-elastic polymer, an impact dispersing gel, and a shape memory material, said helmet being a lightweight, force-absorbing head protective device that has a receiving space for receiving a user's head and a front open side (par.37 discloses a lightweight helmet and par.39 discloses the layer 24 is impact or force absorbing).
For claim 28, Ferrara teaches the polygonal structures comprise hexagons as in paragraph 47.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (WO 2020/245609 A1) in view of Storey (12,150,510). The claims receive the effective filing date of the application- 2/26/2025-due to the new matter limitations of claims 1 and 18.
Cook discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Cook teaches a helmet comprising an outer shell
104, said helmet having at least one layer 102 that includes an array of impact absorbing polygonal
structures that form a regular tessellate and being proximate to the outer shell 104, the at least one
layer 102 providing configured to provide resistance to an impact force (disclosed as impact-absorbing
layer), and said at least one layer 102 being breathable and generally porous to provide ventilation (holes 22 of layer 14 provide ventilation as in col.4, lines 27-31). The array of impact absorbing polygonal structures are devoid of elastomeric material between the polygonal structures as the polygonal structures share respective walls and wherein the polygonal structures attenuate impact energy and reduce trauma resulting from impacts to the head. However, Cook doesn't teach said at least one layer comprising thermoplastic polyurethane, said helmet being a lightweight, force-absorbing
head protective device that has a receiving space for receiving a user's head and a front open side.
Storey teaches a helmet with an outer shell 17 and an impact absorbing layer 11 formed from
thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) with a receiving space for a user's head and a front open side. The
TPU is an elastomeric polymer suitable for absorbing repeated impacts and is reversible such that the
helmet maintains its shape and behaviour after an impact. Cook's modified helmet is a lightweight,
force-absorbing head protective device with a receiving space for receiving a user's head and a front
open side. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the invention to modify Cook's impact absorbing layer to form from TPU, as Storey teaches
TPU is known as an impact absorbing material with recovery properties to assume its original shape after impact.
For claim 2, the polygonal structures are in a hexagonal pattern (Fig.1).
For claim 3, the polygonal structures comprise a honeycomb shape (Fig.1).
For claim 4, the polygonal structures are in groups of hexagons that form said regular tessellate (Fig.1).
For claim 5 as best understood, the at least one layer is a mesh material as it includes a pattern of
repeated openings between walls of the polygonal structures for ventilation.
For claim 8, the array of polygonal structures comprises a hexagonal structure construct and is porous to
provide ventilation (each cell of the tessellate is hollow).
For claim 9, the array of polygonal structures comprise groups of hexagons (Fig.1).
For claim 10, the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures form a hexagonal grid.
For claim 11, the at least one layer that includes the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures is flexible (formed from expanded polystyrene).
For claim 13, the regular tesselate is formed by three hexagons around every vertex (Fig.1).
For claim 18, Cook discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Cook teaches a helmet
comprising an outer shell 104; and having at least one layer 102 that includes an array of impact
absorbing polygonal structures that form a tessellate and being proximate to the outer shell 104, said at
least one layer 102 providing configured to provide resistance to an impact force (disclosed as impact-
absorbing), said at least one layer 102 comprising one or more of the following materials: thermoplastic
polyurethane, an impact absorbing silicone, an energy-absorbing foam (expanded polystyrene), a
polymer gel, a shock-absorbing elastomer, a visco-elastic polymer, an impact dispersing gel, and shape
memory material, said at least one layer being breathable and generally porous to provide ventilation
(holes 22 of layer 14 provide ventilation as in col.4, lines 27-31), said helmet being a lightweight, force-
absorbing head protective device that has a receiving space for receiving a user's head (Cook's helmet is
considered as lightweight as it is structurally equivalent to the claimed helmet), and wherein the polygonal structures comprise a honeycomb shape and are in a hexagonal pattern (Fig.1 and pg.13, lines 27-28), and wherein the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures are devoid of elastomeric material between the polygonal structures as the polygonal structures share respective walls. Cook doesn't teach said helmet having one or more layers of internal padding or pads. Storey teaches an internal padding layer 16 for energy absorption under impact that is also air permeable. Storey teaches the padding layer minimizes injuries for the helmet wearer during impact with an external object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cook's helmet to provide one or more layers of internal padding or pads as Storey teaches it's known in the helmet art to combine an impact absorbing layer with a pad layer for further impact absorption to prevent injuries to the wearer's head under impact.
Claims 21, 23-27 and 29, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrara (U.S. 2006/0059606) in view of Ho (U.S. 2003/0140400). Note that claims 21, 23-26, and 29 receive the effective filing date of the provisional application 62/031, 936 of 8/1/2014 and claim 27 receives the effective filing date of the present application- 2/26/2025. Ferrara discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 21, Ferrara teaches a helmet 2 (Figs. 1-3) comprising an outer shell 20, the helmet having at least one layer 24 that includes an array of impact absorbing polygonal structures that form a regular tessellate (par.47 discloses a honeycomb structure with interconnected hexagonal cells), the at least one layer 24 configured to provide resistance to an impact force (par.47 discloses “The interconnected cells absorb and distribute the energy of an impact evenly throughout the structure.”) The helmet 2 being a lightweight, force-absorbing head protective device that has a receiving space for receiving a user's head and front open side. However, Ferrara doesn’t teach helmet including mesh material that is breathable and generally porous to provide ventilation. Ho teaches a helmet (Fig.4) including an outer shell 1 and including mesh material 4 combined with an impact absorbing structure 2,3. Ho teaches the mesh material 4 serves to screen vents 5 of the helmet and prevent entry of foreign bodies into the helmet through vents 5. Modifying Ferrara’s helmet to include the mesh material is expected to improve Ferrara’s helmet in the same manner based on where the mesh material is oriented as the mesh is understood to all for airflow while preventing debris from entering the helmet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ferrara’s helmet to include mesh material that is breathable and porous to provide ventilation as Ho teaches it’s known in the helmet art to combine mesh material with a padding structure to allow for airflow while preventing debris from entering into a helmet interior, particularly as Ferrera’s honeycomb structure includes open cells and the outer shell may include ventilation openings 6,6’.
For claim 23, Ferrera’s modified helmet teaches the array of polygonal structures are in a hexagonal pattern as the array includes interconnected hexagonal-shaped cells and a hexagonal pattern or arrangement of the polygonal structures is present.
For claim 24, Ferrera’s modified helmet teaches the array of polygonal structures have a honeycomb shape as in paragraph 47.
For claim 25, Ferrera’s modified helmet teaches the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures form a hexagonal grid as the array of hexagonal-shaped cells are interconnected forming a framework or grid.
For claim 26, Ferrera’s modified helmet teaches the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures are hexagonal-shaped as in paragraph 47.
For claim 27, Ferrera’s modified helmet teaches the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures are devoid of elastomeric material between the polygonal structures as the structures are interconnected at their respective walls and Ferrera doesn’t disclose an elastomeric material between the polygonal structures.
For claim 29, Ferrera’s modified helmet teaches the polygonal structures comprise hexagons as in paragraph 47.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrara ‘606 in view of Kamata (U.S. 5,093,938). Ferrara discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Ferrara doesn’t teach the helmet further comprising a padding layer comprising a mesh material that aids in breathability. Kamata teaches a helmet comprising a padding layer 8 comprising a mesh material 9 that aids in breathability- “to promote ventilation in the cap body 2”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ferrara’s helmet to comprise a padding layer comprising a mesh material that aids in breathability as Kamata teaches the mesh material aids in breathability to promote ventilation within the helmet interior and the ventilated conditions are expected to contribute to the helmet wearer’s comfort.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections set forth in the Final Office Action are maintained as the drawings of the originally filed application don’t show the array of impact absorbing polygonal structures devoid of elastomeric material between the polygonal structures. Applicant points to 62/047,260 and 2016/0029733 as support for new Figure 25. A review of those applications shows Figure 19 as illustrating the same structures as in new Fig.25; however, the 62/047,260 provisional application includes one reference number “23” disclosed as “an array of polygonal (preferably hexagonal-shaped) sections 23” with no further details. Applicant’s specification amendments and replacement drawings attempt to present different embodiments of the helmet’s polygonal/hexagonal sections. These amendments are not entered because the originally filed specification doesn’t describe distinct embodiments of the helmet’s layer of impact absorbing polygonal structures including the details set forth in said amendments.
Applicant has not provided arguments regarding the merits of the rejection of Cook ivo Storey as
Applicant relies on the position that claim 1 and its dependents, claim 18, and claim 21 are entitled to an effective date that pre-dates the Storey and Cook references. Applicant points to paragraphs 53 and 114 as disclosing alternative embodiments, with paragraph 53 disclosing the helmet “has flexible material in-between harder sections” vs alternative embodiments in par. 114 “composed of a tough material such as a plastic (polycarbonate) for an array of polygonal (preferably hexagonal shaped) sections 23.” It’s not clear that these paragraphs are presented to distinguish between alternative embodiments, as paragraph 53 broadly discloses certain aspects of the present invention relate to a superior helmet construction, which in concert with one or more of the features set forth herein (e.g…shock absorbing assemblies, armadillo-like surfaces, etc.) and further discloses conventional helmets lack various structural and functional aspects of the present invention, including helmet constructions that employ various features derived from nature, including designs that incorporate structural features of an armadillo shell and the use of specialized shock absorbing polymers and composites (such as Sorbothane) in conjunction with other structural armadillo-derived features. Originally filed Figure 19 appears to be partially addressed in paragraph 113 disclosing helmet 10 having at least one layer including an array of polygonal structures 23 including hexagonal patterns and a myriad of hexagonal structures 23 resemble- both structurally and functionally- the shell of an armadillo. However, the specification doesn’t provide details as to what is shown by Figure 19 such that it can be determined that Figure 19 excludes elastomeric material between the polygonal structures 23. It is noted that paragraph 114 discloses “one embodiment is inspired by the three-banded armadillo” and armadillo shells include ossified dermal scutes covered by non-overlapping scales connected by flexible bands of skin and helmet 10 incorporates such structural features of the armadillo shell and is composed of tough material for an array of polygonal sections 23 (preferably hexagonal-shaped) using a softer material between the hexagons 23. As previously discussed and outlined in MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure and if alternative embodiments are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. Based on a review of the originally filed application (as well as parent applications/patents), there is no support for the exclusion of the elastomeric material between the polygonal structures as claimed because the application doesn’t discuss alternate embodiments to this effect.
Page 11 of Applicant’s remarks provides various Federal Circuit decisions and submits “The Federal Circuit has been clear that ‘claim constructions that exclude a particular element’ constitute a ‘negative limitation’. AC Techs. S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 912 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed.Cir. 2019) and points to the specification as clearly outlining only certain embodiments of the invention resemble armadillo-type structures, as in paragraphs 112 and 114. However, the armadillo shell-derived features or structures are repeatedly mentioned as in pars.53, 112, 113, 114 without a clear disclosure of an alternative polygonal/hexagonal structure.
The Examiner agrees with Applicant that claim 20 is entitled to the effective filing date of the provisional applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732