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 .
A power of attorney is of record for this application, filed 8/21/2025.
A pre-amendment was received 3/12/2025. Claims 1-15 are cancelled and claims 16-33 are pending as newly submitted.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-26 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 20-26: delete “the at least one deflecting device” and replace with “the at least one rigid deflecting device”,
Claim 23: delete the comma after “device”,
Claim 32: delete “(such” and insert “such”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 earmuffs with two ear cups and a support band passed under the outer shell of claim 33 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 22 recites the at least one deflecting device is concavely curved relative to the ear region. This rejection may be overcome by amending the limitation such that the at least one deflecting device is set forth functionally relative to the wearer’s ear region/human anatomy.
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.
Claims 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 recites “a deflecting arrangement configured for lying against the head when the at least one front strap is secured and the at least one rear strap is secured,”. It’s not clear what the respective straps are secured to such that the scope of this limitation can be ascertained. It’s noted that the claim previously recites the at least one front strap fastened at front fastening locations and the at least one rear strap fastened to rear fastening locations and therefore, it’s understood that the straps are fastened or secured to the respective fastening locations. However, it’s not clear how the deflecting arrangement is configured for lying against the head when the at least one front and at least one rear straps are secured. Claims 21 and 22 are indefinite as claim 21 recites the at least one deflecting device is curved in an arc-like fashion. How is the device “like” an arc?
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 16, 17, 27-30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Durocher et al. (CA 2847669 A1). Durocher discloses the invention as claimed. Durocher teaches a protective helmet 10 comprising: an outer shell 12 configured for distributing impact forces; a strap arrangement comprising at least one front strap and at least one rear strap (see annotated drawing), respectively, configured for securing the protective helmet on a head of a wearer of the protective helmet, wherein front fastening locations of the protective helmet, at which the at least one front strap is fastened, are arranged offset with respect to rear fastening locations of the protective helmet, at which the at least one rear strap is fastened, along a longitudinal direction of the protective helmet. See Figure 5 showing the slot for receiving the at least one rear strap located at edge of occipital portion 37 and the slot for receiving the at least one front strap located at a side portion of the helmet with at least a portion of the rear strap slot offset from the slot for the front strap along a longitudinal direction of the helmet); and a deflecting arrangement 14 configured for lying against the head when the at least one front strap is secured and the at least one rear strap is secured, wherein the deflecting arrangement is connected to the outer shell 12 so as to be freely movable with respect thereto and is configured for engaging with the at least one rear strap such that the at least one rear strap is deflectable away from an ear region of the head.
For claim 17, Durocher teaches the protective helmet according to claim 16, wherein the deflecting arrangement 14 is configured for engaging with the at least one front strap such that the at least one front strap is deflectable away from the ear region of the head. Note that the deflecting arrangement engages with the at least one front strap and the at least one front strap is deflectable away from the ear region of the head as in figure 1.
For claim 27, Durocher teaches the protective helmet according to claim 16, wherein the strap arrangement has at least one chin strap 16 configured for securing the strap arrangement on a chin region of the head.
For claim 28, Durocher teaches the protective helmet according to claim 27, wherein the at least one chin strap 16 is attached to the deflecting arrangement as in Figure 1.
For claim 30, Durocher teaches the protective helmet according to claim 27, wherein the at least one chin strap 16 is arranged spaced apart from the outer shell 12.
For claim 32, Durocher teaches the protective helmet according to claim 16, wherein the at least one rear strap is deflectable by the deflecting arrangement such that the at least one rear strap is guidable past an ear cup of earmuffs arranged under the protective helmet. Durocher’s at least one rear strap is considered as capable of being guided past an ear cup of earmuffs arranged under the helmet.
PNG
media_image1.png
777
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18, 19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durocher ‘669 in view of Finquel et al. (EP 3,289,906 A1). Durocher discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Durocher doesn’t teach the protective helmet according to claim 16, wherein the deflecting arrangement has at least one rigid deflecting device, which is able to rest against a side of the head and the deflecting arrangement has two rigid deflecting devices, which are able to rest against opposite sides of the head. Finquel teaches a helmet including equivalent left and right (two) deflecting devices 118,120 disclosed as rigid. Finquel teaches the devices 118,120 surround the ear of the helmet wearer from above, below and the rear, and the rigid property absorbs lateral shocks and protect the ear. Modifying Durocher’s deflecting arrangement to include the two rigid deflecting devices is expected to improve Durocher’s helmet in the same manner, as the rigid deflecting devices would surround the ear of the helmet wearer to absorb lateral shocks and protect the ear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Durocher’s deflecting arrangement to include two rigid deflecting devices which are able to rest against opposite sides of the head, as Finquel teaches it’s known in the helmet art to form a deflecting arrangement having two rigid deflecting devices for absorbing impacts and protecting the ear.
For claims 21 and 22, Durocher teaches the protective helmet according to claim 18, wherein the at least one deflecting device includes curved portions. However, Durocher doesn’t teach the at least one deflecting device is curved in an arc-like fashion and the at least one deflecting device is concavely curved relative to the ear region. Finquel’s deflecting devices 118,120 are curved in an arc-like fashion and is concavely curved relative to the ear region as Finquel discloses the devices as having a front edge 136 that is concave. Finquel teaches that the curved in an arc-like fashion and concavely curved features are suitable for framing a wearer’s ear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Durocher’s at least one deflecting device to form as curved in an arc-like fashion and concavely curved relative to the ear region as Finquel teaches the at least one deflecting device having these feature will frame a wearer’s ear for protection.
For claim 23, Durocher’s modified helmet teaches the at least one deflecting device has an orientation in the longitudinal direction as shown in Figure 1.
For claim 24, Durocher doesn’t teach the protective helmet according to claim 18 wherein the at least one rear strap is attached to the at least one deflecting device and for claim 25, Durocher doesn’t teach the protective helmet according to claim 18 wherein the at least one front strap is attached to the at least one deflecting device. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the straps could be attached to the deflecting device during manufacturing of the helmet vs. the straps formed as a continuous structure with the deflecting device, and a particular type of attaching means could be selected including hook and loop, stitching, etc. The intended function of the straps and deflecting device is not affected by the manner in which the straps and deflecting device are associated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Durocher’s helmet such that the at least one rear strap and at least one front strap are attached to the deflecting device as a particular attaching means could be selected to achieve a desired aesthetic.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durocher ‘669 in view of Hilleary (U.S. 5,737,777). Durocher discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Durocher doesn’t teach the protective helmet according to claim 18, wherein the at least one deflecting device has a tubular channel, through which tubular channel the at least one rear strap and/or the at least one front strap is passed. Hilleary teaches a helmet strap 16 with a tubular channel 24 through which tubular channel the strap is passed. Hilleary teaches that the channel provides a cushioning surface for the comfort of the wearer so that the strap doesn’t irritate the wearer’s skin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Durocher’s helmet such that the at least one deflecting device has a tubular channel through which the at least one rear strap and/or the at least one front strap is passed, as Hilleary teaches the channel provides a cushioning surface to interface with the wearer’s skin.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durocher ‘669 in view of Otsuka (U.S. 3,500,475), Durocher discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the protective helmet of claim 32, further comprising earmuffs with two ear cups and a support band, wherein the support band is passed under the outer shell. Otsuka teaches a helmet with two ear cups 11 and a support band as shown in Figure 3 extending between the ear cups and the band passed under the outer shell 1. Figure 1 shows at least a portion of the band passed under the outer shell such that the ear cups are capable of being oriented over the wearer’s ears. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Durocher’s helmet to comprise earmuffs with two ear cups and a support band passed under the outer shell, as Otsuka teaches such arrangement is known in the art and assists with the placement of the earmuffs over the wearer’s ears.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 26 recites a front deflection fastening point of the at least one front strap on the at least one deflecting device is arranged offset relative to a rear deflection fastening point of the at least one rear strap on the at least one deflecting device with respect to the longitudinal direction and claim 31 depends from claim 26. The prior art of Durocher doesn’t teach this limitation and it is not considered obvious to modify Durocher to arrive at the claimed structure.
Conclusion
The PTO-892 form lists references considered relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732