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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s entire Specification appears to be a direct translation from a foreign language to English and some meaning has been lost in translation. Also, the Specification is replete with grammatical and writing errors or lack of clarity.
It is suggested that the entire Specification be reviewed and corrected to ensure that the Specification is clear and concise and has the proper support for each claimed element in the claims.
The proper “Headings” have not been included as outlined above.
The “Detailed Description” does not include the proper heading and parts of the “Detailed Description” are unclear because of translational errors. On page 4, line 7, the recitation of “The cap 2 is substantially configured to be stably pieced stably at least on top of the user’s head” is unclear. IT is not clear as to what the metes and bounds of the word “Stably” encompasses. It is not clear if the term means that the cap does not move at all or has a small amount of movement on a head of a wearer when worn. Also, on page 4, line 8, it is not clear as to what the term “conventional shape” for the cap encompasses.
On page 5, line 6, applicant is defining the term “mesh” that is used throughout the Specification. A conventional “mesh” is usually meaning an “interlaced structure”, “ a network of wire or thread” , “ a weblike pattern” or is “linear structures that interlock together”. However, applicant’s Specification on page 5, lines 6-9 appear to define “ a mesh” as “A set of segments mutually connected so as to implement a closed profile”. Applicant’s Specification is disclosing a “first mesh 30 with a first opening 30a and a first perimeter profile 30b”. Applicant’s invention does not actually appear to be a “mesh” as commonly known but is more so a “Frame” structure having three different openings. One opening for a wearer’s eyes, a second opening for a wearer’s mouth and a third opening for each of the wearer’s ear’s.
There does not appear to be any type of a “grid-type material” that is commonly known as a “mesh” in the face guard frame.
It is suggested that Applicant amend the Specification to clarify all unclear terms and grammatical errors throughout the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-10, line 1, prior to the term “Helmet” it is suggested that Applicant insert - - A - - so that the claim language appears grammatically correct.
In claims 1-10, it is suggested that the “reference numbers” throughout the claims be removed to avoid confusion in reading the claims.
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 1-10 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.
In claims 1-10, line 1, in the claim preambles, applicant is claiming a “Helmet”. However, in line 2, applicant is then claiming “ a cap”. A “Helmet” and “a cap” are defined as two separate different structures and it is not clear as to exactly what structure Applicant is attempting to claim. A “Helmet” is normally a hard shell structure while “A cap” is normally defined as a “soft material or fabric cover for a head of a wearer. Applicant made be intending to claim the “helmet” as the “cap” and the “Frame” structure. Also, in line 2, the term “Stably placed” is not clear. It is not clear as to what the metes and bounds of the term “stably placed” encompasses other than that the cap is situated on a head of a wearer without movement and is secure.
In claim 1, lines 5-7, Applicant is claiming “ A first mesh” and “A second mesh”. The term “mesh” has been discussed above as a “grid-like structure” normally of a “wire or thread”. However, it is not clear as to how Applicant’s structure is considered to be “ a first mesh” and “ a second mesh” since there is no grid-like structure present. The Reference numbers referring to the “Mesh” include 30, 31 and 32, appear to be pointing at “Frame openings”. Applicant’s structure appears to only claim a frame with a first perimeter opening and a second perimeter opening. The use of the term “mesh” throughout the claim is confusing since it appears to imply that there is a “Mesh” or possible “wire grid-like material” within the frame perimeter profile. The frame appears to actually be a rigid frame structure with openings for the eyes and mouth in claim 1.
In claim 2, the term “Third links” is not clear in that it does not appear that “first links” or “second links” have been previously claimed in claim 1. It is not clear as to how “Third links” is each “Formed by a third opening”. It also appears that the “perimeter profile “ sections are the same as “said frame” throughout claims 1 and 2.
In claim 3, it appears that the “perimeter profile” portions are further defined by “sections”.
In claim 3, line 2, there is no antecedent basis for “said third perimeter profile”. In claim 4, line 2, there is no antecedent basis for “Said second section” and “said third section”. Claim 4, depends from claim 1 and the antecedent basis is actually in claim 3.
In regard to claim 9, applicant claims “said cap” that appears to be a part of “the helmet” and is not equal to “a helmet structure”.
In claim 10, line 2, the term “solidly” is not clear/ It is not clear as to what the “metes and bounds” of the term encompasses. IT is not clear if applicant’s meaning for “solidly” is “ without movement”.
However, the claims, as best understood, have been examined on their merits.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract includes references numbers there that may lead to confusion and should be deleted for clarity. 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).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Santos (US 7430763 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Santos discloses a helmet 10 in figure 3, as broadly claimed, comprising : a cap in figure 3 and see SANTOS claim 1E, not numbered in the figure 3, said cap configured to be stably placed on top of a user’s head; a frame (not numbered in the figures, but in col. 2, lines 22, frame 20 of 22,24,26, 28 in col. 2, lines 25-28, first opening between rigid member 26 and 24 and second opening between rigid members 24 and 22 with vertical frame portions 28, 28’, in col, 2, lines 32-33; and wherein each opening covers the mouth area and the eye area as claimed. (See figure 3 and col. 2, lines 20-42).
In regard to claim 2, Santos discloses the helmet according to claim 1 and further wherein the reticulate structure of the frame as discussed above in claim 1, further includes a pair of links formed by a third opening, the links being 28, 28’ to be a third perimeter profile(24,26,28,28’, of the frame to configure a third opining therewithin those parameters beyond 28 and 28’ of , and lies frontally to an ear of the user.
In regard to claim 4, Santos discloses the first, second and third sections as discussed in claims 1-3 above, that meet at a node- of 28 and 28’ on the sides of the frame in figure 3 as broadly claimed.
In regard to claim 5, Santos discloses the second perimeter profile(in figure 3 between rigid members 26 and 24 and that comprises a chin guard 60 in col. 2, line 22, and said frame 20 of 22,24,26 is configured such that the helmet 10 is in use the second perimeter profile lies frontally to the chin of the user at said chin guard.
In regard to claim 6 Santos discloses the frame as being rigid as in col. 2, lines 20-34 and in figures 1-3 describing rigid members 22,24,26.
In regard to claim 9 applicant is claiming that the cap(no t numbered----- described in claim 1(E) is wearable as a racing or mountain bike helmet. Nothing precludes the Santos structure from being worn as such as an intended use since no additional structure to define the cap as such has been further claimed in claim 9. (See figure 3).
In regard to claim 10 Santos discloses a lace integral with the cap(not numbered) and configured to secure the cap solidly to a head of a user as see in in figure 3 and as discussed in cool. 2, lines 35-36 and in claim 1 (D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos in view of Todaro (US 20210000209 A1).
In regard to claims 7 and 8, Santos discloses the cap and facemask that forms a helmet as broadly claimed in claim 1. However, Santos does not specifically disclose the cap portion of the helmet as being formed of polystyrene and the facemask as being metallic. Todaro discloses constructing a cap portion of a helmet of polystyrene as in para. (0090), that is used for cycling as in para. (0050) and wherein the face mask is metallic as discussed in para. (0056).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the helmet of Santos to choose the desired materials to form the helmet cap of polystyrene and facemask of a metallic material in order to achieve the desired benefits of those materials during use. (See Todaro, paras. (0090, 0056, 0050) .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA M HALE whose telephone number is (571)272-4984. The examiner can normally be reached MON.-THURS..
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 1-571-272-3425. 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.
/GLORIA M HALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732