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 . Claims 21-40 are being treated on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/09/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.33(b) because it lacks a proper signature. In addition, the information disclosure statement filed 06/09/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. The IDS filed 06/09/2026 has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 35 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 29, line 2, "the top layer" appears to read "a top layer" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 35, a redundant space is present before the period at the end.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being which renders the claim indefinite. for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The preamble of claim 21 recites "A helmet"; however, the claim body positively recites a significant amount of intermediate product features and/or process features after the transition term "comprising"; for example, "two or more layers of prepreg material stacked together to form a prepreg stack" and "a helmet preform that includes the prepreg stack". It is noted that material and/or structural features in a prepreg and/or a preform are not necessarily fully retained in a final helmet because generally some materials and/or structures are removed during procedures to form a helmet. It is unclear whether the structure and material of "prepreg stack" and the "preform" are fully retained in the final helmet product. It is also unclear how the process features in claim 21 affect the structural and material features of the final helmet product. In other word, it is unclear what the structural and material features the claimed helmet actually has. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 21 recites the helmet comprising "a helmet preform that includes the prepreg stack" and "wherein the helmet includes one or more helmet preforms and is created by a consolidation process that includes: placing the one or more helmet preforms in a mold; and applying pressure and temperature to the mold". It is unclear what is the relationship between "a helmet preform", "one or more helmet preforms" and "the one or more helmet preforms". Does "one or more helmet preforms" and/or "the one or more helmet preforms" include "a helmet preform"? How can "one or more helmet preforms" be created by processing the same "one or more helmet preforms"? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 22 has been set forth as a product claim, but positively recite the limitations "a first sacrificial layer" and "a second sacrificial layer", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "sacrificial" indicates that the layers are temporary layers used in a process of making the helmet, and do not exist in the final helmet product. As such, the claimed helmet is not expected to include the first and second sacrificial layers as claimed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 23 has been set forth a product claim, but recites the limitation "the layers of the prepreg stack include woven fibers", which renders the claim indefinite due to a similar reason as discussed for claim 21. It is unclear whether the final helmet product actually includes "woven fibers". For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the claimed helmet may or may not comprise woven fibers.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the fibers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that each of the layers of the prepreg comprising fibers.
Claims 24-25 each recite the limitation "fiber axis". It is unclear what is being referred to by the phrase. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the feature. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be an axis along which fibers are aligned.
Claims 24-26 each recite structural features of a "prepreg" defined in claim 21, which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear how the structural features of the prepreg in the claims affect the structural and material features of the final helmet product. In other word, it is unclear what the structural and material features the claimed helmet actually has. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 24-25 recite the limitation "each layer" with a plurality of instances. The claims each depend from claim 21, and claim 21 has set forth two or more layers of prepreg material. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the previous defined two or more layers of prepreg material or different layers. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be each layer of the two or more layers in the prepreg stack.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "each later includes". It is unclear what is being referred to by "each later". For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be each layer of the two or more layers in the prepreg stack.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the helmet preform". The claim depends from claim 21, and claim 21 has set forth "a helmet preform" and "one or more helmet preforms". It is unclear which helmet preform is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be any of the helmet preforms defined in claim 21.
Claim 28 has been set forth as a product claim, but recites the limitation "wherein the prepreg stack is configured to have an orientation relative to a punch coordinate axis of the punch, prior to clamping the prepreg stack between the contact surface of the forming draw ring and the contact surface of the non-forming draw ring", which is drawn to a process of making the helmet. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 29 has been set forth as a product claim, but recites the limitation "the prepreg stack includes one or more indices superimposed upon the top layer of the prepreg stack, the one or more indices being designed to align with the punch coordinate axis", which is drawn to a process of making the helmet. It is unclear whether the one or more indices are fully retained in the final helmet product. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the claimed helmet may or may not comprise the one or more indices.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the deep drawn helmet preform" with multiple instances. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which helmet preform is a deep drawn helmet preform. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be any of the helmet preforms defined in claim 21.
Claim 30 has been set forth as a product claim, but recites the limitation "one or more inserts added to the deep drawn helmet preform, the one or more inserts either providing attachment points for subsequent system integration of the deep drawn helmet, or providing reinforcement to encase an unfinished edge of the deep drawn helmet", which is drawn to a process of making the helmet. It is unclear whether the one or more inserts are fully retained in the final helmet product. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the claimed helmet may or may not comprise the one or more inserts.
Claim 31 has been set forth as a product claim, but recites the limitation "a resin film or resin mesh material added to the helmet preform, prior to placing the one or more helmet preforms in the mold, to promote pressure uniformity during consolidation of the helmet", which is drawn to a process of making the helmet. It is unclear whether the resin film or resin mesh material is fully retained in the final helmet product. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the claimed helmet may or may not comprise the resin film or resin mesh material.
The preamble of claim 32 recites "A helmet"; however, the claim body positively recites a significant amount of intermediate product features and/or process features after the transition term "comprising"; for example, "one or more plies stacked on top of one another to form a prepreg stack" and "a helmet preform that includes the one or more plies of the prepreg stack". It is noted that material and/or structural features in a prepreg and/or a preform are not necessarily retained in a final helmet product because generally some materials and/or structures are removed during process procedures to form a helmet. It is unclear whether the structure and material of "prepreg stack" and the "preform" are fully retained in the final helmet product. It is also unclear how the process features in claim 32 affect the structural and material features of the final helmet product. In other word, it is unclear what the structural and material features the claimed helmet actually has. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "one or more plies stacked on top of one another to form a prepreg stack", which renders the claim indefinite. In a scenario of only one ply, the one ply cannot have the feature "stacked on top of one another". In addition, is a single ply considered as a stack? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 32 recites the helmet comprising "a helmet preform that includes the prepreg stack" and "the helmet includes one or more helmet preforms and is formed using a second helmet forming process". It is unclear what is the relationship between "a helmet preform", "one or more helmet preforms". Does "one or more helmet preforms" include "a helmet preform"? What is the second helmet forming process? Does the second helmet forming process result in any structural difference between "a helmet preform" and "one or more helmet preforms"? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 33, 37 and 40 each recite the limitation "the helmet preform". The claims each depend from claim 32, and claim 32 has set forth "a helmet preform" and "one or more helmet preforms". It is unclear which helmet preform is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be any of the helmet preforms defined in claim 32.
Claim 33 has been set forth as a product claim, but the entire claim body recites a process of forming the helmet preform from the prepreg stack. Noting that material and/or structural features in a prepreg and/or a preform are not necessarily retained in a final helmet, it is unclear how the process features in the claim affect the structural and material features of the final helmet product. In other word, it is unclear what the structural and material features the claimed helmet product actually has. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 34 has been set forth as a product claim, but recites the limitation "a top layer of a top-most ply of the prepreg stack includes one or more indices for aligning the prepreg stack relative to one or more features of the first helmet forming system", which is drawn to a process of making the helmet. It is unclear whether the one or more indices are fully retained in the final helmet product. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the claimed helmet may or may not comprise the one or more indices.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "fiber axis". It is unclear what is being referred to by the phrase. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the feature. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be an axis along which fibers are aligned.
Claim 36 has been set forth a product claim, but recites the limitation "the layers of the one or more plies (of the prepreg stack) include woven fibers", which renders the claim indefinite due to a similar reason as discussed for claim 32. It is unclear whether the final helmet product actually includes "woven fibers". For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the claimed helmet may or may not comprise woven fibers.
Claims 37-39 each recite features of the helmet preform. Similar to claim 32, It is unclear whether the claimed helmet product retains the full features of the helmet preform or different. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 38-39 each recite the limitation "the one or more helmet preforms". The claims each depend from claim 32, and claim 32 has set forth "a helmet preform" and "one or more helmet preforms". It is unclear which one or more helmet preforms are being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be any one or more of the helmet preforms defined in claim 32.
Claim 39 depends from claim 39 itself, which renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that claim 39 depends from claim 32.
Claim 40 has been set forth as a product claim, but the entire claim body recites a process of treating the prepreg stack to enable more material flow of the prepreg stack in a first portion as compared to a second portion. It is unclear how the process features in the claim affect the structural and material features of the claimed helmet product. In other word, it is unclear what the structural and material features the claimed helmet actually has. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
In addition, Applicant is reminded that the examiner's interpretations of unclear limitations in the 112(b) section have been made per broadest reasoning interpretation for the purpose of applying prior art, and does not necessarily constitute a suggestion. Applicant should make proper claim amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth. It is noted that claim 39 depends from claim 39 itself, failing to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.
Note
At the outset, the product claims recite a significant number of intermediate product and/or process features, which render the product claims unclear as to what structural features the process imparts to the claimed product. The original disclosure does not provide a standard to ascertaining the product features. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand the claimed subject matter or what is being disclosed. See the above 112(b) rejections. For the purpose of applying prior art, claims 21-40 have been interpreted as best understood.
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.
Claims 21-40, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Folgar (US 2017/0027268 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the claim deems a product-by-process claim, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113, I. In this case, the claim appears to only require a helmet comprising: two or more layers of material stacked and consolidated together. Folgar discloses a helmet (figs. 16b-d; paras. 0063, 0108) comprising: one or more helmet preforms (preform 1630; fig. 16a; para. 0108) comprising two or more layers of material (originated from many 0/90 prepreg layers 1612, 1622, 1632; fig. 16a; paras. 0078-0079, 0104) stacked and consolidated together (paras. 0104, 0108).
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites process limitation "further comprising a first sacrificial layer configured to adjust friction between the contact surface of the forming draw ring and the top layer of the prepreg stack during the drawing process and a second sacrificial layer configured to adjust friction between the contact surface of the non-forming draw ring and the bottom layer of the prepreg stack during the drawing process", which does not provide any further structural feature for the helmet. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that sacrificial layers will not be retained in a final product. Folgar's helmet as discussed for claim 21 meets the claimed structural requirement.
Regarding claim 23, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the layers of the prepreg stack include woven fibers (woven fibers of high tenacity para-aramid or UHMWPE; para. 0074).
Regarding claim 24, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21, and further discloses wherein each layer includes a fiber axis (the fibers in each layer are uni-directionally oriented; paras. 0074, 0079), and wherein the fibers in each layer are arranged to be substantially adjacent to one another and to be parallel to the fiber axis (as being uni-directionally oriented).
Regarding claim 25, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21, and further discloses wherein each layer includes a fiber axis (the fibers in each layer are uni-directionally oriented; paras. 0074, 0079), and wherein the fiber axis of any one layer is arranged to be substantially perpendicular to the fiber axis of each layer below and above the any one layer (the fibers in adjacent layers are cross-plied; i.e., arranged at 90 degrees; paras. 0015, 0078-0079).
Regarding claim 26, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the layers of the prepreg stack do not include any slits or darts (the prepreg layers are formed with no cut, no seams, no wrinkles; para. 0079).
Regarding claim 27, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the helmet preform is configured to include earcups (see fig. 16d).
As to the limitation "wherein after the drawing process but prior to the creating of the helmet, one or more additional layers of prepreg material are added to the helmet preform to increase an area or thickness of the earcups", the limitation is deemed a product-by-process limitation. Noting the claim does not provide thickness distribution in the helmet, the limitation only requires that the earcups of the helmet has a thickness. Folgar's helmet as discussed for claim 21 meets the claimed structural requirement.
Regarding claim 28, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21. The limitation "wherein the prepreg stack is configured to have an orientation relative to a punch coordinate axis of the punch, prior to clamping the prepreg stack between the contact surface of the forming draw ring and the contact surface of the non-forming draw ring" is deemed a product-by-process limitation. The limitation does not provide any further structural feature for the helmet.
Regarding claim 29, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21. The only limitation "wherein: the prepreg stack includes one or more indices superimposed upon the top layer of the prepreg stack, the one or more indices being designed to align with the punch coordinate axis" is deemed a product-by-process limitation. The limitation does not provide any further structural feature for the helmet.
Regarding claim 30, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21. The only limitation "further comprising one or more inserts added to the deep drawn helmet preform, the one or more inserts either providing attachment points for subsequent system integration of the deep drawn helmet, or providing reinforcement to encase an unfinished edge of the deep drawn helmet" is deemed a product-by-process limitation. The limitation does not provide any further structural feature for the helmet.
Regarding claim 31, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 21. The limitation "further comprising a resin film or resin mesh material added to the helmet preform, prior to placing the one or more helmet preforms in the mold, to promote pressure uniformity during consolidation of the helmet" is deemed a product-by-process limitation. The limitation does not provide any further structural feature for the helmet.
Regarding claim 32, the claim deems a product-by-process claim, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113, I. In this case, the claims appear to require a helmet comprising: a helmet preform comprising one or more plies stacked on top of one another, wherein each of the plies includes fiber reinforced layers formed from prepreg material, and each of the plies includes at least a top layer and a bottom layer. Folgar discloses a helmet (figs. 16b-d; paras. 0063, 0108) comprising: a helmet preform (preform 1630; fig. 16a; para. 0108) comprising one or more plies stacked on top of one another (a stack of prepreg layers comprising many prepreg layers arranged on top of each other, each ply comprising at least two thermoplastic matrix prepreg layers; paras. 0079, 0094, 0104, 0108), wherein each of the plies includes fiber reinforced layers formed from prepreg material (each ply comprising at least two cross-plied para-aramid or UHMWPE fibers thermoplastic matrix prepreg layers; paras. 0074, 0079), and each of the plies includes at least a top layer and a bottom layer (at least two cross-plied layers comprising at least a top layer and a bottom layer; paras. 0074, 0079).
Regarding claim 33, the claim deems a product-by-process claim and does not provide any further structural feature for the helmet. The helmet of Folgar as discussed for claim 32 meets the claimed structural requirement.
Regarding claim 34, the claim deems a product-by-process claim and does not provide any further structural feature for the helmet. The helmet of Folgar as discussed for claim 32 meets the claimed structural requirement.
Regarding claim 35, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 32, and further discloses wherein the prepreg stack includes two or more plies (paras. 0074, 0104), each layer in the two or more plies includes a fiber axis (the fibers in each layer are uni-directionally oriented; paras. 0074, 0079), and the two or more plies are stacked such that the fiber axes of at least two adjacent layers of the two or more plies are perpendicular to each other (the fibers in adjacent layers are cross-plied; i.e., arranged at 90 degrees; paras. 0015, 0078-0079).
Regarding claim 36, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 32, and further discloses wherein the layers of the one or more plies include woven fibers (woven fibers of high tenacity para-aramid or UHMWPE; para. 0074).
Regarding claim 37, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 32, and further discloses wherein the one or more plies comprise a plurality of fibers (para. 0074, 0094), and at least a portion of the plurality of fibers are oriented (the uni-directionally oriented fibers at 90° from each other paras. 0073-0074, 0094).
As to the limitations "wherein the helmet preform includes a compound curvature" and "at least a portion of the plurality of fibers are oriented to conform to a compound curvature", the limitations each deem a product-by-process limitation. The limitations do not provide any further structural feature for the helmet, because the preform may not retain the compound curvature in a finished helmet unless specified.
Regarding claim 38, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 32. The limitation "further comprising one or more plies or one or more portions of a ply added to the one or more helmet preforms to increase an area or thickness of at least one portion of the helmet" is deemed a product-by-process limitation. Noting that the claim does not provide any thickness distribution feature in the helmet product, the limitation only requires that the at least one portion of the helmet has an area or a thickness. Folgar's helmet as discussed for claim 32 meets the claimed structural requirement.
Regarding claim 39, Folgar discloses the helmet of claim 32, and further discloses wherein the one or more helmet preforms are configured to include earcups (see fig. 16d).
As to the limitation "wherein the one or more plies or one or more portions of a ply are added to the one or more helmet preforms to increase an area or thickness of the earcups", the limitation is deemed a product-by-process limitation. Noting that the claim does not provide any thickness distribution feature in the helmet product, the limitation only requires that the earcups of the helmet has a thickness. Folgar's helmet as discussed for claim 32 meets the claimed structural requirement.
Regarding claim 40, the claim is deemed a product-by-process claim, and does not provide any additional structure for the helmet. Folgar's helmet as discussed for claim 32 meets the claimed structural requirement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. GB 839,453 A can be another 102 reference. Heimer (US 2017/0128817 A1) also teaches a helmet comprising a shell, the shell comprising woven fibers. Khandelwal (US 2016/0187104 A1) teaches a helmet comprising a plurality of helmet preforms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, 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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights