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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04-22-2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
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 “an outer side and an inner side” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 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 1 is rejected because it recites limitations “an outer side and an inner side”. It is not clear what/where the structure is.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shida (2001/0039674) in view of Taniuchi (5,388,277).
Regarding claim 1, Shida teaches a helmet (figs 1-5), comprising:
a helmet body (member 1) including an eye port (member 3) at a front side;
a shield (member 4) attached to the helmet body to allow the eye port to be opened and closed (para 0036); and
an air intake mechanism (members 51-52) configured to deliver air to an inner surface of the shield when the shield is in a closed state closing the eye port (para 0112), wherein the air intake mechanism includes an accommodation portion (member 51) defined inside the helmet body, and
a body member (member 53) accommodated in and attached in a removable manner to the accommodation portion (para 0056),
the accommodation portion includes an outer wall member (member 56) including an air inlet (member 66) connecting an outer side and an inner side, an inner wall member (back side of member 56) positioned to face the outer wall member, an access port (member 58) used for attachment and removal of the mesh member, and a vent that delivers the air drawn in through the air inlet to the inner surface of the shield when the shield is in the closed state, and
the body member includes a body facing the air inlet in an accommodated state in which the body member is accommodated in the accommodation portion (figs 2-3).
Shida does not teach the air intake mechanism comprising a mesh portion.
Taniuchi teaches an air intake mechanism comprising a mesh portion (fig 3, member 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the structure of Shida by adding a mesh member into the body member, as taught by Taniuchi, in order to increase the air filter for a user.
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure Shida-Taniuchi discloses the access port and the vent are defined by the same opening (Shida, fig 3).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Shida-Taniuchi discloses the mesh is pressed against an inner surface of the outer wall member in the accommodated state (Taniuchi, fig 3).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Shida-Taniuchi discloses the mesh member includes reinforcement walls separated from each other, and each of the reinforcement walls is a wall extending in a first direction toward the vent on a surface of the mesh that faces the inner wall member (Shida, members 62-63).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure Shida-Taniuchi discloses the mesh member includes a connecting wall connecting the reinforcement walls in a second direction that intersects the first direction (Shida, member 59).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure Shida-Taniuchi discloses at least some of the reinforcement walls include an engagement tab engaged with an edge of the outer wall member that defines the access port (Shida, fig 4, member 58a and 58b).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Shida-Taniuchi discloses the mesh member includes, at each of two ends of the connecting wall in the second direction, a pressed portion pressed against the inner wall member in the accommodated state (Shida, fig 4, the two end of member 59).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure Shida-Taniuchi discloses the accommodation portion includes a stopper that restricts excessive entry of the mesh member into the accommodation portion, and the mesh member includes a restriction piece having a distal end that comes into contact with the stopper when the mesh member is inserted into the accommodation portion (Shida, member 89).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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 D. HUYNH can be reached at (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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
