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 filed 06/26/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a cavity for receiving a head of a wearer” in line 3 of Claim 1 should read “a cavity configured to receive a head of a wearer” to ensure that a wearer’s head is not positively claimed
“a fist end” in line 9 of Claim 1 should read “a first end”
“the wearer)” in line 13 of Claim 1 should read “the wearer”
“wherein the curved plane having a first thickness and the dome structure having a second thickness different from the first thickness” in Claim 4 should read “wherein the curved plane has a first thickness and the dome structure has a second thickness different from the first thickness” so as to correct the grammar
“wherein the shell is made from shock absorbing material” in Claim 5 should read “wherein the shell is made from a shock absorbing material” so as to provide antecedent basis for the shock absorbing material
“wherein the shell is made from rigid material” in Claim 6 should read “wherein the shell is made from a rigid material” so as to provide antecedent basis for the rigid material
“(the excess hair of the wearer of the protective helmet or material for collecting the excess hair of the wearer)” in Claim 9 should read “the excess hair of the wearer of the protective helmet or material for collecting the excess hair of the wearer”
“at least one of a chin strap and a back strap for securing the maintaining a secure fit of the protective helmet on the head of the wearer” in Claim 20 should read “at least one of a chin strap and a back strap configured to the maintaining a secure fit of the protective helmet on the head of the wearer” so as to avoid duplicative language and positively claiming a wearer’s head
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation “the front side, right side, left side and back side are in substantial contact with corresponding sections of the head of the wearer” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what “substantial contact” is referring to, and the specification is not clear as to what constitutes “substantial contact.” Contact is black and white, such that two objects either are or are not in contact, and it is not clear what middle ground would constitute “substantial contact.”
Claims 2-20 depend from Claim 1 and are likewise rejected due to dependency.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more of (the excess hair of the wearer of the protective helmet or material for collecting the excess hair of the wearer)” which renders the claim indefinite. The one of more of the excess hair of the wearer and the material for collecting the excess hair of the wearer are positively recited in the claim, however they appear to be outside of the scope of Claim 1, which recites “a protective helmet.” It is not clear if the one of more of the excess hair of the wearer and the material for collecting the excess hair of the wearer are intended to be positively claimed to be a part of the invention, or if this is a functional recitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the hair bun is undisturbed when the protective helmet is put on or taken off by the wearer” which renders the claim indefinite. The hair bun is positively recited in the claim, however they appear to be outside of the scope of Claim 1, which recites “a protective helmet.” It is not clear if the hair bun is intended to be positively claimed to be a part of the invention, or if this is a functional recitation.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “forms an internal padding to the outer shell” which renders the claim indefinite. “Forms” appears to be reciting a positive method step in a product claim. Further, it is not clear what “forms an internal padding to the outer shell” is referring to, as the claim already has recited that the shell is securely fitted to an interior surface of the outer shell. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim to read “is configured to form an internal padding” so as to avoid reciting a method step and remove redundant language.
Claims 14-20 depend from Claim 13 and are likewise rejected due to dependency.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "such for" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 15 recites “wherein each of the outer shell and the shell is a unitary structure, such for each of the outer shell and the shell, the curved plane and the dome structure are permanently coupled.” It is not clear if the curved plane and the dome structure of the outer shell and the shell are required to be permanently coupled. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim to read “wherein each of the outer shell and the shell is a unitary structure, wherein the curved plane and the dome structure of each of the outer shell and the shell are permanently coupled,” or similar.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the protective having at least one ventilation, the at least one ventilation opening formed as a pair of an opening in the shell and an outer shell” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what “the protective” is referring to, as “the protective” lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is not clear if “at least one ventilation” is referring to the same structure as “the at least one ventilation opening.” Additionally, Claim 18 recites “an outer shell,” and Claim 13, from which Claim 18 depends recites “a rigid outer shell.” It is not clear if the outer shell and the rigid outer shell are the same or different structures. Finally, it is not clear how “at least one ventilation opening” can be just one ventilation opening when the opening is defined as a pair (or two) openings. As best understood from the instant specification, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim to read as following, or similar: “further comprising at least one ventilation opening, wherein each of the at least one ventilation opening is formed as an opening extending through the shell and the rigid outer shell.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “wherein the protective helmet is configured to be compliant with regulatory safety standards” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what regulatory safety standards are being referred to, or what these safety standards include. For example, if the safely standards are referring to bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets, or construction site helmets, all of which are considered protective helmets. Further, it is not clear who is the authority that promulgates these standards, or which specific set of standards are being complied with, as standards are subject to change with time. Because the scope of “regulatory safety standards” cannot be reasonably apprised from the instant specification, Claim 19 is considered as being indefinite.
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.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are 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 9 recites “wherein the one or more of (the excess hair of the wearer of the protective helmet or material for collecting the excess hair of the wearer) form a thick part behind the hair bun relative to hair surrounding the excess hair or material.” As such, Applicant has positively recited and claimed a human body part, because the excess hair of a wearer is actively being recited within a product claim. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to add functional language such as "adapted to” or “configured to” preceding any reference to a human or human body part. For example, Applicant could recite "wherein the one or more of the excess hair of the wearer of the protective helmet or material for collecting the excess hair of the wearer is configured to form a thick part behind the hair bun relative to hair surrounding the excess hair or material.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein the hair bun is undisturbed when the protective helmet is put on or taken off by the wearer..” As such, Applicant has positively recited and claimed a human body part, because a wearer’s hair bun is actively being recited within a product claim. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to add functional language such as "adapted to” or “configured to” preceding any reference to a human or human body part. For example, Applicant could recite " wherein the hair bun is configured to be undisturbed when the protective helmet is put on or taken off by the wearer.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are free of art rejections, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached 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.
/HALEY A SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights