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
As directed by the amendment received on April 29, 2026, claims 1-11 and 15-18 have been amended. Claims 19-20 were previously canceled. Claims 21-25 are new. Accordingly, claims 1-18 and 21-25 are currently pending in this application with claims 12-14 being withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on April 29, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated January 29, 2026, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Drawings
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“wherein the mounting component includes a retention mechanism for retaining the locking slider at or near the mounting component when the locking slider is in the disengaged position” as recited in claim 7 (See additional objection to the drawings below and 112(b) rejection below for additional discussion)
“full brim construction helmet” and the “cap style construction helmet” as recited in claim 16 (Examiner notes that only a full brimmed fire helmet appears to be disclosed in the application as originally filed according to Applicant’s own description of the figures)
“the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising a material with a lower fracture toughness or yield strength than other sections of the mounting component” as recited in claim 21 (See 112(a) rejection below for additional discussion)
“the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component having a thinner width than other sections of the mounting component” as recited in claim 22 (Examiner notes that a weak point having a thinner width was only ever discussed at [0030] as originally filed with respect to a notch 706 of the anchor 700 as depicted in at least Fig. 7, not the mounting component 208)
“the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising one or more notches, perforations, or holes” as recited in claim 23 (Examiner notes that a weak point comprising notches, perforations, or holes was only ever discussed at [0030] as originally filed with respect to a notch 706 of the anchor 700 as depicted in at least Fig. 7, not the mounting component 208; What is more, only a weak point being a notch is shown in the figures, while perforations or holes are not shown)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “231” as seen in at least Fig. 2.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “230” as discussed at least at [0023]. It appears that reference character “231” in Fig. 2 is meant to be reference character “230” discussed in the specification.
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.
Specification – Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because at line 1, “Systems and methods are provided […]” is implied phraseology. It is suggested that the first sentence of the abstract be removed and the second sentence instead read “A helmet shell mounting assembly includes a mounting component and […]”.
It appears as though Applicant may have mistakenly resubmitted the abstract as originally filed without incorporating any changes to overcome the objections. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification – Disclosure
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising a material with a lower fracture toughness or yield strength than other sections of the mounting component” as recited in claim 21
“wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component having a thinner width than other sections of the mounting component” as recited in claim 22
“wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising one or more notches, perforations, or holes” as recited in claim 23
The disclosure is also objected to because of inconsistent use of the terms “mounting component”, “mounting assembly”, and “mounting portion” all seemingly used interchangeably throughout the specification and each term being attributed to the same reference character “208”. The terminology with respect to reference character “208” should be brought into alignment throughout the specification (and in light of the claims) in order to ensure a clear understanding of the specific structural relationships of Applicant’s disclosed invention and the claimed subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a retention mechanism” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-23 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 21 recites the limitation “wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising a material with a lower fracture toughness or yield strength than other sections of the mounting component” at lines 1-3. This limitation was not described in the application as originally filed. Indeed, “fracture toughness” and “yield strength” were not originally disclosed whatsoever let alone a comparison of these measurements between different sections of the mounting component. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter and should be removed from the claims. Correction is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component having a thinner width than other sections of the mounting component” at lines 1-3. This limitation was not described in the application as originally filed. As previously noted above, a weak point having a thinner width was only ever discussed at [0030] as originally filed with respect to a width of a notch 706 of the anchor 700 as depicted in at least Fig. 7, not the mounting component 208. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter and should be removed from the claims. Correction is required.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising one or more notches, perforations, or holes” at lines 1-2. This limitation was not described in the application as originally filed. As previously noted above, a weak point comprising notches, perforations, or holes was only ever discussed at [0030] as originally filed with respect a notch 706 of the anchor 700 as depicted in at least Fig. 7, not the mounting component 208. What is more, only a weak point being a notch is shown in the figures, while perforations or holes are not shown. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter and should be removed from the claims. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-4, 7, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the mounting assembly” at lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the helmet shell mounting assembly”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the mounting assembly” at lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the helmet shell mounting assembly”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the mounting component includes a retention mechanism for retaining the locking slider at or near the mounting component when the locking slider is in the disengaged position” at lines 1-3. It is unclear how the retention mechanism can retain the locking slider at our near the mounting component when the locking slider is in the disengaged position. Based on [0023] of Applicant’s disclosure, the retention mechanism of the mounting component appears to be a combination of tab 230/231 of the locking slider 210 which is meant to catch on some surface within the channel 220 that is not shown in the drawings. That said, in newly amended Fig. 2, the locking slider is depicted as being in the disengaged position and removed from the mounting component, wherein the tab 230/231 is not in contact with any other structure to retain the locking slider in position. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If the retention mechanism is instead meant to retain the locking slider when in the engaged position instead of the disengaged position, it is suggested that the limitation be amended to recite as much. Clarification and/or correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 21-23 each recite the limitation “wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component […]” at lines 1-2. As discussed with respect to the objections to the drawings and specification as well as the 112(a) rejections above, Applicant’s inconsistent terminology and lack of explicitly shown features throughout the disclosure compounds to result in a lack of clarity in the claims as to which structures are exactly meant to include the claimed weak point and subsequent limitations. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear, and the claims are rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitations of each claim instead read “wherein the weak point comprises a section of the helmet shell mounting assembly […]”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of each claim will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 3-4 and 21-23 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 1-11, 15, 17-18, and 21-25 (claims 3-4, 7, and 21-23, as best can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 6,108,824 to Fournier et al. (hereinafter, “Fournier”).
Regarding claim 1, Fournier teaches a helmet shell mounting assembly (See Fournier, Figs. 14-28 assembly (215) for mounting a hypothetical helmet shell together such as outer and inner helmet shell portions (312, 314) of the depicted helmet), comprising: a mounting component (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; cover (290)); a locking slider configured to interface with the mounting component when in an engaged position and to slide between an engaged position and a disengaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; plate (280) is capable of interfacing with cover (290) in an engaged position, i.e., Fig. 21, to secure a hypothetical outer helmet shell to a hypothetical inner helmet, such as outer and inner helmet shell portions (312, 314)); wherein the locking slider is configured to secure an outer helmet shell to an inner helmet when the locking slider is in an engaged position, wherein the locking slider does not secure the outer helmet shell to the inner helmet when the locking slider is in a disengaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; plate (280) is capable of securing a hypothetical outer helmet shell to a hypothetical inner helmet, such as outer and inner helmet shell portions (312, 314), while in an engaged position, i.e., Fig. 21, and not securing hypothetical helmet shells together while in a disengaged position, i.e., Fig. 22 wherein portions (312, 314) are separated from one another; Examiner notes that the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet are not positively recited in the claim; so long as structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, the claimed functional limitations will be interpreted as being met by the prior art).
Regarding claim 2, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the mounting assembly is configured to provide separation of the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet when the mounting assembly is subjected to greater than a threshold tensile load (See Fournier, Figs. 21-22; locking assembly (215) of Fournier is capable of providing separation of hypothetical outer and inner helmet shells, such as outer and inner shell portions (312, 314), when slider plate (280) of the locking assembly is subjected to a force over a threshold to move the posts (272, 274) out of respective retention regions (282, 284), i.e., being moved from a locked to unlocked state; locking assembly (215) is also capable of providing separation when a component, such as posts (272, 274), are subjected to a threshold tensile load that breaks the posts).
Regarding claim 3, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1-2 above) further teaches wherein the mounting assembly comprises a weak point, wherein the weak point is a region or component which is configured to fracture when subjected to at least the threshold tensile load (See Fournier Figs. 21-22; locking assembly (215) includes a weak point capable of fracturing when subjected to a threshold tensile load; for example, posts (272, 274) having thinner cross-sectional width (as seen in Fig. 28) are capable of breaking under an applied threshold tensile load; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 4, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the outer helmet shell is configured to be removed from the inner helmet when the weak point is fractured or when the locking slider is moved to the disengaged position (a hypothetical outer helmet shell is capable of being removed form a hypothetical inner helmet when a weak point of the assembly (215) of Fournier is fractured or when the sliding plate (280) of the assembly is moved to a disengaged position, i.e., unlocked; as previously stated, the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet are not positively recited in the claim; so long as structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, the claimed functional limitations will be interpreted as being met by the prior art).
Regarding claim 5, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the locking slider comprises a transverse locking slider that is configured to substantially span a width of the mounting component when the locking slider is in the engaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-26; sliding plate (280) is capable of extending in a transverse direction and substantially spans a width of the cover plate (290)).
Regarding claim 6, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the mounting component comprises a channel configured to receive the locking slider when the locking slider is in the engaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-26, cover plate (290) includes an interior channel capable of receiving sliding plate (280) when in the engaged positioned, i.e., locked).
Regarding claim 7, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5-6 above) further teaches wherein the mounting component includes a retention mechanism for retaining the locking slider at or near the mounting component when the locking slider is in a disengaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-26; sliding plate (280) is retained by the cover plate (290) even when in a disengaged position at least by a central tabs on the sliding plate (280) which engage corresponding aperture of the cover plate (290)).
Regarding claim 8, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches an anchor (See Fournier, Figs. 21-27; spring plate (270)); wherein an extending portion of the anchor is configured to pass through the outer helmet shell via a through hole, wherein the extending portion of the anchor is configured to be received by the mounting component (posts (272, 274) are capable of extending through holes in a hypothetical outer helmet shell, such as outer helmet shell portion (312), to be received by cover plate (290) on the top side; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), and wherein the locking slider is configured to retain the extending portion of the anchor within the mounting component when in the engaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; sliding plate (280) is capable of retaining posts (272, 274) in respective retention regions (282, 284) within cover plate (290) when the locking assembly is in an engaged positioned, i.e., locked).
Regarding claim 9, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8 above) further teaches wherein the anchor comprises: the extending portion of the anchor (See Fournier, Figs. 27-28; posts (272, 274)); and a retention portion (base (271)); wherein the retention portion is larger than the through hole such that the retention portion is configured to reside on one side of the through hole while the extending portion is configured to extend through the through hole for retention by the locking slider once received by the mounting component (See Fournier, Figs. 21-22; base (271) is capable of being larger than holes in a hypothetical outer shell, such as those holes in outer helmet shell portion (312), and capable of residing on one side while the posts (272, 274) are capable of extending up through the holes for retention by sliding plate (280) and cover plate (290)).
Regarding claim 10, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8-9 above) further teaches wherein the extending portion comprises a plurality of hooks (See Fournier, Figs. 27-28; cross members (273, 275)).
Regarding claim 11, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8-10 above) further teaches wherein the locking slider comprises an anchor trapping region (See Fournier, Figs. 21-28; retention regions (282, 284); Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the anchor trapping region includes a recess configured to partially surround an upper portion of at least one of said plurality of hooks (release regions (281) are capable of partially surrounding an upper portions cross members (273, 275)) and a retention surface configured to be positioned above a lower portion of said at least one of said plurality of hooks so as to limit an ability to extract said at least one of said plurality of hooks from the mounting component when the locking slider is in the engaged position (locked regions (285) are capable of extending above a lower portions of cross members (273, 275) to limit an ability to extract the cross members from cover plate (290) when in an engaged position, i.e., locked).
Regarding claim 15, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the locking slider includes a notch or a protuberance configured to interface with the mounting component to hold the locking slider in the engaged position until the locking slider is subjected to more than a threshold force to disengage the locking slider (See Fournier, Figs. 21-25; sliding plate (280) includes protruding central tabs which are capable of interfacing with corresponding apertures of the cover plate (290) and holding the locking slider when the cover plate is moved to the engaged position until the cover plate and sliding plates are subjected to a threshold force, e.g., the force of a user manipulating the locking assembly, that moves them to the disengaged state).
Regarding claim 17, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches further comprising an inner helmet (See Fournier, Figs. 14-22; inner helmet shell portion (314) is positioned interior with respect to outer helmet shell portion (312)), wherein the inner helmet comprises an inner portion that is configured to conform to a head of a user (See Fournier, Figs. 14-22; inner helmet shell portion (314) includes inner surface portion capable of conforming to at least a portion of a hypothetical user’s head; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the inner helmet further comprises an outer portion that comprises a shock absorbing material (inner helmet shell portion (314) includes an outer surface portion and is formed of high strength plastic material capable of absorbing at least some of a hypothetical shock; See Col. 4, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 18, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the mounting component is configured to be permanently attached to the inner helmet (the cover plate (290) in the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Oleson is capable of being permanently attached at least indirectly to a hypothetical inner helmet, such as inner helmet shell portion (314), if a user never removes the cover plate; as previously stated, the inner helmet is not positively recited in the claim; so long as structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, the claimed functional limitations will be interpreted as being met by the prior art).
Regarding claim 21, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches to wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising a material with a lower fracture toughness or yield strength than other sections of the mounting component (See Fournier Figs. 21-22; locking assembly (215) includes a weak point at posts (272, 274) having thinner cross-sectional width than other sections (as seen in Fig. 28) resulting in a lower yield strength than those thicker sections; Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); See 112(b) rejection above for additional discussion on claim interpretation).
Regarding claim 22, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component having a thinner width than other sections of the mounting component (See Fournier Figs. 21-22; locking assembly (215) includes a weak point at posts (272, 274) having thinner cross-sectional width than other sections (as seen in Fig. 28); Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); See 112(b) rejection above for additional discussion on claim interpretation).
Regarding claim 23, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising one or more notches, perforations, or holes (See Fournier Figs. 21-22; locking assembly (215) includes a weak point at posts (272, 274) which form notches in with cross members (275) and lower base (271) in an overall width of spring plate (270) as seen in Fig. 28; Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); See 112(b) rejection above for additional discussion on claim interpretation).
Regarding claim 24, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the locking slider further comprises an outer surface or knob to facilitate moving the locking slider between the engaged position and the disengaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-22; outer surface of sliding plate (280) engages with cover (290) to facilitate movement of the sliding plate (280) between engaged and disengaged positions via the cover (290)).
Regarding claim 25, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the locking slider is configured to slide linearly between the engaged position and the disengaged position (See Fournier, Figs. 21-22; sliding plate (280) is capable of sliding linearly along surface of outer helmet shell portion (312) between engaged and disengaged positions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0350291 to Maldonado et al. (hereinafter, “Maldonado”).
Regarding claim 16, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the outer helmet shell comprises a full brim fire helmet, a full brim construction helmet, or a cap style construction helmet.
However, Maldonado, in a related helmet art, is directed to headwear, such as a protective helmet for construction having an apparatus for improving noticeability (See Maldonado, Fig. 2C; abstract). More specifically, Maldonado teaches wherein the outer helmet shell comprises a full brim fire helmet, a full brim construction helmet, or a cap style construction helmet (See Maldonado, Fig. 2C; helmet includes cap style brim or visor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the brim disclosed by Maldonado on the front of the helmet of Fournier for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing additional eye protection from debris and sunlight for a wearer and/or for aesthetic purposes.
Claims 3-4 and 21-23, as best can be understood, are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of USPN 2,597,764 to Tucker et al. (hereinafter, “Tucker”).
Examiner’s Note: the claims are also rejected as discussed below based on an alternative interpretation of Fournier, wherein Fournier is silent to explicit disclosure of a weak point configured to fracture
Regarding claim 3, Fournier (as discussed with respect to claims 1-2 above) is silent to wherein the mounting assembly comprises a weak point, wherein the weak point is a region or component which is configured to fracture when subjected to at least the threshold tensile load.
However, Tucker, in a related protective helmet art, is directed to a crash helmet having helmet components connected with intentionally frangible portions allowing for quick removal of the helmet in cases of emergency (See Tucker, Figs. 1-3; claim 1). More specifically, Tucker teaches wherein the mounting assembly comprises a weak point, wherein the weak point is a region or component which is configured to fracture when subjected to at least the threshold tensile load (See Tucker, Figs. 1-3; connector pin (19) includes notch (36) configured to be snapped when subjected to a threshold tensile load; Col. 4, lines 21-26; claim 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include a notched weak point in connecting assembly of Fournier, for example in the posts spanning between and connecting outer and inner helmet shell portions, as disclosed by Tucker in order to provide means for quickly removing the helmet from a wearer’s head in an emergency (See Tucker, Col. 4, lines 21-26; claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Tucker, as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the outer helmet shell is configured to be removed from the inner helmet when the weak point is fractured or when the locking slider is moved to the disengaged position (See Fournier Figs. 21-22; a hypothetical outer helmet shell, such as outer helmet shell portion (312), is capable of being removed from a hypothetical inner helmet, such as inner helmet shell portion (314), when the weak point is fractured as discussed in the modification above; alternatively, the outer and inner shells are removed from one another when the sliding plate (280) is moved to the disengaged position as seen in Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 21, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Tucker, as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising a material with a lower fracture toughness or yield strength than other sections of the mounting component (See Tucker, Figs. 1-3; notch (36) of Tucker as applied to the connection in the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Fournier, as discussed above, would have a lower yield strength than other sections allowing it to be snapped when subjected to a threshold tensile load; Col. 4, lines 21-26; claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Tucker, as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component having a thinner width than other sections of the mounting component (See Tucker, Figs. 1-3; notch (36) of Tucker as applied to the connection in the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Fournier, as discussed above, would have a thinner width than other sections allowing it to be snapped when subjected to a threshold tensile load; Col. 4, lines 21-26; claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Fournier (i.e., Fournier in view of Tucker, as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the weak point comprises a section of the mounting component comprising one or more notches, perforations, or holes (See Tucker, Figs. 1-3; notch (36) of Tucker as applied to the connection in the modified helmet shell mounting assembly of Fournier, as discussed above; Col. 4, lines 21-26; claim 1).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, filed April 29, 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention with respect to claim 1, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., removability of an outer helmet shell) are not recited in rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that Applicant removed this limitation from claim 1 via amendment.
Examiner again notes that throughout a majority of the claims (excluding claims 16-17), the outer helmet shell and the inner helmet are not positively recited in the claims and are instead recited as part of functional limitations only. So long as structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, the claimed functional limitations will be interpreted as being met by the prior art.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the use of the language “configured to” as opposed to “capable of” in the claims, Examiner notes that Applicant has not recited structure in the claims that provides a nexus with the claimed functional language in a manner that would overcome the structure of the prior art. Absent such additional claimed structure, and as previously stated above, so long as structure of the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed functional limitations, the claimed functional limitations will be interpreted as being met by the prior art.
Examiner further notes that although Applicant appears to state that “configured to” should be construed in a narrower sense than “capable of”, Applicant does not appear to provide what narrower interpretation is intended by the claims through the use of this language and exactly how the prior art does not meet this narrower interpretation.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Fournier does not teach a locking slider configured to slide linearly between the engaged position and the disengaged position and that Fournier instead discloses a non-linear path between positions, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above and as seen in Figs. 21-22 of Fournier, sliding plate (280) is capable of sliding linearly along surface of outer helmet shell portion (312) between engaged and disengaged positions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0047679 to Rogers et al.; US 2015/0040295 to Pfanner et al.; US 2005/0235402 to Foote et al.; USPN 3,882,546 to Morton; US 2017/0311669 to Morin et al.; US 2013/0174332 to Bryant et al.; and USPN 5,940,891 to Lane are each directed to helmet structures and/or helmet fastening systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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 T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights