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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B: Figs. 5-7: a helmet comprising a one-piece adjustable shell and slots in the reply filed on 10/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are identified in the reply as reading on the elected species.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/15/2025.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for facilitating outward deflection comprises a plurality of slots in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,295,442 in view of [Moore, US 6,154,889, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 2 of the reference patent discloses (it is noted claim 2 of the reference patent depends from claim 1 of the reference patent):
An adjustable helmet, comprising (claim 1 line 1):
a helmet shell including a front portion, a top portion, side portions, and a rear portion, wherein the side portions comprise a left-side portion and a right-side portion (claim 1 lines 2-4);
means for facilitating outward deflection of the side portions and the rear portion when the helmet is donned (the “first and second slots” which “facilitate outward deflection of the left-side portion, the right-side portion, and the rear portion when the helmet is donned” of claim 1 lines 17-19); and
one or more limiting straps connecting the left-side portion to the rear portion and connecting the right-side portion to the rear portion (claim 1 lines 13-15 and claim 2 lines 1-4);
wherein each limiting strap of the one or more limiting straps is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell (claim 1 lines 13-15).
Claim 2 of the reference patent does not expressly disclose a liner positioned in an interior of the helmet.
However, Moore teaches providing a liner positioned in an interior of a helmet: “protective helmet made from a resilient shell...The helmet also has an energy absorbing liner disposed inside the shell”; Abstract.
Moore further teaches “The liner 14 is an energy absorbing device to help cushion the wearer's head against an impact”; col. 5 lines 49-50.
It 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 to have modified the claim 2 helmet such that it is provided with a liner positioned in an interior of the helmet in order to help cushion the wearer’s head against an impact, as suggested by Moore (col. 5 lines 49-50).
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 2 of the reference patent in view of Moore teach The adjustable helmet of claim 8, as set forth above.
Claim 2 of the reference patent further discloses a first slot between the left-side portion and the rear portion, the first slot extending to a bottom of the helmet shell such that the left-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other (claim 1 lines 5-8) along the first slot (a given slot provided in such a way that two portions are separated from each other is along the slot so as to separate said portions); and a second slot between the right-side portion and the rear portion, the second slot extending to the bottom of the helmet shell such that the right-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other (claim 1 lines 9-12) along the second slot (a given slot provided in such a way that two portions are separated from each other is along the slot so as to separate said portions).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 1: “each of the slots” should be --each of the plurality of slots--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 1:
Baron discloses (Figs. 1-6):
An adjustable helmet 10, comprising:
a one-piece (Figs. 1-6) helmet shell 12 including a front portion 16, a top portion 14, side portions 22, 28 and a rear portion 34, wherein the side portions 22, 28 comprise a left-side portion 22 and a right-side portion 28, and wherein the rear portion 34 is integral with (Figs. 1-6) the top portion 14; means (the slot between 48 and 54 combined with the slot between 46 and 52) for facilitating outward deflection of the side portions and the rear portion when the helmet is donned (“panel portions” are configured to “move relative to each other” for “providing a custom fit for any particular head size” (p. 11 lines 14-15) such that the slots are for facilitating outward deflection of side portions and rear portions when the helmet is utilized in a variety of contexts including a context when the helmet is donned);
a first limiting strap 60 (i.e. the one of 60 spanning left-side portion 22 and rear portion 34; Fig. 5) connecting the left-side portion to the rear portion (Fig. 5; p. 11 lines 4-13), wherein an entirety of the first limiting strap is positioned lower than a lower edge of the front portion (Figs. 2 and 4-5, wherein it is noted that Fig. 5 shows limiting strap 60 below upper edges of 56 and 58, and upper edges of 56 and 58 are provided lower than a lower edge of front portion 16 in Figs. 2 and 4), and wherein the first limiting strap is configured to limit deflection of the left-side portion away from the rear portion (limiting strap is configured to permit relative movement of panel portions for custom fit (p. 11 lines 13-15) and also for “preventing the plurality of panel portions from separating from one-another”; p. 11 lines 10-11) such that it is configured to limit deflection as claimed); and
a second limiting strap 60 (i.e. the one of 60 spanning right-side portion 28 and rear portion 34; Fig. 5) connecting the right-side portion to the rear portion (Fig. 5; p. 11 lines 4-13), wherein an entirety of the second limiting strap is positioned lower than the lower edge of the front portion (Figs. 2 and 4-5, wherein it is noted that Fig. 5 shows limiting strap 60 below upper edges of 56 and 58, and upper edges of 56 and 58 are provided lower than a lower edge of front portion 16 in Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 3:
Baron discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Baron further discloses wherein the means (the slot between 48 and 54 combined with the slot between 46 and 52) for facilitating outward deflection comprises a plurality of slots (the slot between 48 and 54 combined with the slot between 46 and 52) in the helmet shell.
Regarding claim 4:
Baron discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 3, as set forth above.
Baron further discloses wherein each of the slots extends from an outer surface of the helmet through an entire thickness of the helmet (first slot is defined by edge 48 of side portion 28 and 54 of rear portion 34; second slot is defined by edge 46 of side portion 22 and edge 52 of rear portion 34 such that each slot extends between the abovementioned respective edges so as to extend from an outer surface through the entire thickness as claimed).
Regarding claim 5:
Baron discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Baron Figs. 1-6 does not expressly disclose further comprising a liner positioned within an interior of the helmet shell.
However and in further view of Baron:
Baron teaches “padding or 25 cushioning...be provided along the inside of” a “shell for increased comfort, better fit and to assist in the absorption of any impact forces” (p. 1 lines 24-26).
It 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 to have modified the adjustable helmet of Baron such that it is provided with a liner positioned within an interior of the helmet shell in order to provide increased comfort, better fit, and/or assistance in absorbing impact forces, as taught by Baron (p. 1 lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 6:
Baron discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Baron further discloses further comprising: a first slot between the left-side portion and the rear portion, the first slot extending to a bottom of the helmet shell such that the left-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the first slot; and a second slot between the right-side portion and the rear portion, the second slot extending to the bottom of the helmet shell such that the right-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the second slot.
(the means (the slot between 48 and 54 combined with the slot between 46 and 52) of the helmet comprises a first slot between 46 and 52 and extending to a bottom as evidenced in Fig. 5 further wherein left-side portion and rear portion are separated along said slot as evidenced in Fig. 5; and comprises a second slot between 48 and 54 and extending to the bottom as evidenced in Fig. 5 further wherein the right-side portion and rear portion are separated along said second slot as evidenced in Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 13-14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Nelson, US 2001/0011388, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 13:
Nelson discloses (Figs. 1-4):
An adjustable helmet 10, comprising a helmet shell 14 including a front portion (see annotated Fig. 2 detail – a below), a top portion (see annotated Fig. 2 detail – a below), side portions (see annotated Fig. 2 detail – a below), and a rear portion (see annotated Fig. 2 detail – a below), wherein the side portions comprise a left- side portion (see annotated Fig. 2 detail – a below) and a right-side portion (see annotated Fig. 2 detail – a below), wherein:
the rear portion is outwardly deflectable relative to the side portions (“portions 14 b, 14 c of the shell layer 14 are flexible allowing their radius of curvature along their major direction (namely, side-to-side) to increase to accommodate wider head shapes. The major portion 14 a also has some flexibility side-to-side. Thus, the soccer helmet 10 has flexibility side-to-side. The soccer helmet 10 may also be flexed crown-to-back thereby increasing the width of the slots 14 d and 14 e”; para 30) between a resting position (a position wherein the soccer helmet is not worn on a head and wherein a “restoring force of the shell layer 14” (para 30) causes the helmet and rear portion thereof to assume the resting position) and an expanded position (wherein the “radius of curvature along their major direction (namely, side-to-side)” is increased “to accommodate wider head shapes" and “The major portion 14 a also has some flexibility side-to-side. Thus, the soccer helmet 10 has flexibility side-to-side. The soccer helmet 10 may also be flexed crown-to-back thereby” to increase “width of the slots 14 d and 14 e”; para 30);
the expanded position comprises at least part of the rear portion being deflected away from the front portion and the side portions (para 30);
the helmet shell 14 comprises a material (a material of the shell) forming at least the top portion and the rear portion (Figs. 1-2); and
the material biases the rear portion to the resting position (shell 14 is configured such that when in the expanded position, the material of the helmet shell provides a “restoring force of the shell layer 14 causes the soccer helmet to hug the human head (H)” (para 30) so as to bias it to bias the rear portion to the resting position as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
599
1151
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14:
Nelson discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Nelson further discloses the side portions are outwardly deflectable relative to the rear portion (para 30); at least one of the side portions comprises a resting position (a position wherein the soccer helmet is not worn on a head and wherein a “restoring force of the shell layer 14” (para 30) causes the helmet and side portion(s) thereof to assume the resting position) and a deflected position (wherein the “radius of curvature along their major direction (namely, side-to-side)” is increased “to accommodate wider head shapes" and “The major portion 14 a also has some flexibility side-to-side. Thus, the soccer helmet 10 has flexibility side-to-side. The soccer helmet 10 may also be flexed crown-to-back thereby” to increase “width of the slots 14 d and 14 e”; para 30); and
the expanded position of the at least one of the side portions comprises part of the at least one of the side portions being deflected away from the rear portion (para 30).
Regarding claim 18:
Nelson discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Nelson further discloses further comprising a liner 12 positioned in an interior of the helmet shell (para 24; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 20:
Nelson discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Nelson further discloses wherein the front portion, the top portion, the side portions, and the rear portion together form a single integrated structure (as in annotated Fig. 2 detail – a presented in above treatment of claim 13).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025] in view of [Brown, US 6,938,272, newly cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Baron discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Baron does not expressly disclose wherein the helmet shell is biased to a resting position that is smaller than a smallest-sized head for which the helmet is configured.
However, Brown teaches a helmet comprising a helmet shell 12 wherein a straps 34 connect side portions 26, 28 to a rear portion 30 (Fig. 4; col. 3 lines 3-5).
Brown further teaches the straps bias the helmet shell: when “in place, straps 34 pull rear portion 30 snugly against the back of the wearer's head to keep the protective helmet securely in place” (col. 3 lines 8-10) that Baron teaches biasing the helmet shell to a resting position that is smaller than a smallest-sized head for which the helmet is configured (the “pull” afforded by the straps is configured such that a resting position afforded thereby is smaller than the wearer’s head size so as to exert said pull when worn; in other words, in the absence of a head of sufficient size, said pull of said straps 34 would bring rear portion 30 closer to side portions 26, 28 into a resting position that is smaller than said head of sufficient size).
Brown further teaches the straps are “elastic” and “allow rear portion 30 to be pulled slightly away from the top and side portions to allow easily fitting the rigid shell over the wearer's head. Once in place, straps 34 pull rear portion 30 snugly against the back of the wearer's head to keep the protective helmet securely in place” (col. 3 lines 5-10).
It 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 to have modified the adjustable helmet of Baron such that its straps 60, 60 bias its shell in such a way that the helmet shell is biased to a resting position that is smaller than a smallest-sized head for which the helmet is configured, as in Brown, in order to permit easy fitting over a wearer’s head upon slightly pulling the rear portion from the side portions upon donning the helmet while also permitting a snug fit after donning said helmet, as suggested by Brown (col. 3 lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025] in view of [Reddemann, GB-2219928-A, newly cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Baron discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Baron does not expressly disclose wherein each of the first limiting strap and the second limiting strap is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell.
However, Reddemann teaches providing a helmet shell 5 (“shell...5”; p. 6 line 9) wherein a limiting strap 10 (strap “10 prevents unintentional opening and holds...halves 6 and 7 together”; p. 6 lines 14-16) is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell (limiting strap 10 is “mounted in a recess” such that it does “not project above the outer contour 8” of the helmet shell 5 (p. 6 lines 17-19).
Reddemann further teaches the perimeter formed by the outer surface of the helmet shell (i.e. the “outer contour 8” of helmet shell 5) is arranged so as to receive an “inner contour” of an “outer shell” provided thereupon wherein “it is convenient for the inner contour of the outer shell to correspond to the outer contour of the inner shell” (p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1).
It 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 to have modified the adjustable helmet of Baron such that each of the first limiting strap and the second limiting strap is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell in order to permit convenient attachment of an additional outer shell thereto and/or to prevent either limiting strap from projecting beyond the perimeter, as suggested by Reddemann (p. 6 lines 17-19; p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025] in view of [Reddemann, GB-2219928-A, newly cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Baron discloses (Figs. 1-6):
An adjustable helmet 10, comprising:
a helmet shell 12 including a front portion 16, a top portion 14, side portions 22, 28 and a rear portion 34, wherein the side portions 22, 28 comprise a left-side portion 22 and a right-side portion 28,
means (the slot between 48 and 54 combined with the slot between 46 and 52) for facilitating outward deflection of the side portions and the rear portion when the helmet is donned (“panel portions” are configured to “move relative to each other” for “providing a custom fit for any particular head size” (p. 11 lines 14-15) such that the slots are for facilitating outward deflection of side portions and rear portions when the helmet is utilized in a variety of contexts including a context when the helmet is donned);
and one or more limiting straps 60, 60 (i.e. the one of 60 spanning left-side portion 22 and rear portion 34; Fig. 5 and also the one of 60 spanning right-side portion 28 and rear portion 34; Fig. 5) connecting the left-side portion to the rear portion (Fig. 5; p. 11 lines 4-13) and connecting the right-side portion to the rear portion (Fig. 5; p. 11 lines 4-13).
(each limiting strap 60 is configured to permit relative movement of panel portions for custom fit (p. 11 lines 13-15) and also for “preventing the plurality of panel portions from separating from one-another”; p. 11 lines 10-11) such that it is a liming strap as claimed).
Baron Figs. 1-6 does not expressly disclose a liner positioned within an interior of the helmet shell.
However and in further view of Baron:
Baron teaches “padding or 25 cushioning...be provided along the inside of” a “shell for increased comfort, better fit and to assist in the absorption of any impact forces” (p. 1 lines 24-26).
It 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 to have modified the adjustable helmet of Baron such that it is provided with a liner positioned within an interior of the helmet shell in order to provide increased comfort, better fit, and/or assistance in absorbing impact forces, as taught by Baron (p. 1 lines 24-26).
Baron does not expressly disclose wherein each limiting strap of the one or more limiting straps is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell.
However, Reddemann teaches providing a helmet shell 5 (“shell...5”; p. 6 line 9) wherein a limiting strap 10 (strap “10 prevents unintentional opening and holds...halves 6 and 7 together”; p. 6 lines 14-16) is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell (limiting strap 10 is “mounted in a recess” such that it does “not project above the outer contour 8” of the helmet shell 5 (p. 6 lines 17-19).
Reddemann further teaches the perimeter formed by the outer surface of the helmet shell (i.e. the “outer contour 8” of helmet shell 5) is arranged so as to receive an “inner contour” of an “outer shell” provided thereupon wherein “it is convenient for the inner contour of the outer shell to correspond to the outer contour of the inner shell” (p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1).
It 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 to have modified the modified Baron such that each limiting strap of the one or more limiting straps is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell in order to permit convenient attachment of an additional outer shell thereto and/or to prevent either limiting strap from projecting beyond the perimeter, as suggested by Reddemann (p. 6 lines 17-19; p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1).
Regarding claim 9:
Baron in view of Reddemann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 8, as set forth above.
Baron further discloses wherein the helmet shell is a single piece (Figs. 1-6), and wherein the rear portion is integral with (Figs. 1-6) the top portion.
Regarding claim 11:
Baron in view of Reddemann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 8, as set forth above.
Baron further discloses wherein: the one or more limiting straps comprises a first limiting strap and a second limiting strap (i.e. the one of 60 spanning left-side portion 22 and rear portion 34; Fig. 5 and also the one of 60 spanning right-side portion 28 and rear portion 34; Fig. 5); an entirety of the first limiting strap is positioned lower than a lower edge of the front portion (Figs. 2 and 4-5, wherein it is noted that Fig. 5 shows limiting strap 60 below upper edges of 56 and 58, and upper edges of 56 and 58 are provided lower than a lower edge of front portion 16 in Figs. 2 and 4); and an entirety of the second limiting strap is positioned lower than the lower edge of the front portion (Figs. 2 and 4-5, wherein it is noted that Fig. 5 shows limiting strap 60 below upper edges of 56 and 58, and upper edges of 56 and 58 are provided lower than a lower edge of front portion 16 in Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 12:
Baron in view of Reddemann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 8, as set forth above.
Baron further discloses further comprising: a first slot between the left-side portion and the rear portion, the first slot extending to a bottom of the helmet shell such that the left-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the first slot; and a second slot between the right-side portion and the rear portion, the second slot extending to the bottom of the helmet shell such that the right-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the second slot.
(the means (the slot between 48 and 54 combined with the slot between 46 and 52) of the helmet comprises a first slot between 46 and 52 and extending to a bottom as evidenced in Fig. 5 further wherein left-side portion and rear portion are separated along said slot as evidenced in Fig. 5; and comprises a second slot between 48 and 54 and extending to the bottom as evidenced in Fig. 5 further wherein the right-side portion and rear portion are separated along said second slot as evidenced in Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Nelson, US 2001/0011388, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025] in view of [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 15:
Nelson discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Nelson does not expressly disclose further comprising one or more limiting straps connecting the left-side portion to the rear portion and connecting the right-side portion to the rear portion.
Nelson does disclose “Flexible tabs 28 a, 28 c connect the minor arcuate portions 14 b, 14 c of the shell layer 14 over the slot 14 e. Flexible tabs 28 b, 28 d connect the minor arcuate portion 14 b of the shell layer 14 to the major portion 14 a of the shell layer 14 over the slot 14 d” (para 28) wherein tabs 28a and 28c connect the left side portion to the rear portion and connect the right side portion to the rear portion (para 28). However Nelson does not disclose such tabs are limiting straps.
However, Baron teaches (Figs. 1-6):
An adjustable helmet 10, comprising:
a helmet shell 12 including a front portion 16, a top portion 14, side portions 22, 28 and a rear portion 34, wherein the side portions 22, 28 comprise a left-side portion 22 and a right-side portion 28,
means (the slot between 48 and 54 combined with the slot between 46 and 52) for facilitating outward deflection of the side portions and the rear portion (“panel portions” are configured to “move relative to each other” for “providing a custom fit for any particular head size” (p. 11 lines 14-15) such that the slots are for facilitating outward deflection of side portions and rear portions);
and tabs 60, 60 (i.e. the one of 60 spanning left-side portion 22 and rear portion 34; Fig. 5 and also the one of 60 spanning right-side portion 28 and rear portion 34; Fig. 5) connecting the left-side portion to the rear portion (Fig. 5; p. 11 lines 4-13) and connecting the right-side portion to the rear portion (Fig. 5; p. 11 lines 4-13) wherein said tabs 60, 60 are limiting straps (each limiting strap is configured to permit relative movement of panel portions for custom fit (p. 11 lines 13-15) and also for “preventing the plurality of panel portions from separating from one-another”; p. 11 lines 10-11) such that it is a limiting strap as claimed).
It 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 to have modified the adjustable helmet of Nelson such that its tabs 28a and 28c are limiting straps connecting the left-side portion to the rear portion and connecting the right-side portion to the rear portion in order to permit relative movement of the portions for custom fit while preventing the portions from becoming separated too far from one another, as suggested by Baron (p. 11 lines 10-15).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Nelson, US 2001/0011388, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025] and [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Mauro, US 3,042,927, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 16:
Nelson in view of Baron teach The adjustable helmet of claim 15, as set forth above.
The modified Nelson does not meet the limitation wherein at least one of the one or more limiting straps comprises an inelastic material.
However Mauro teaches helmet strap (21) comprising an elastic material (22) and also an inelastic material (23). Mauro’s helmet strap permits conformance to the size and shape of the wearer’s head (col. 2 lines 31-33).
It 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 to have modified the modified Nelson such that its first and second limiting straps comprise an elastic and also inelastic material, as in Mauro, in order to permit conformance to the wearer’s head, as suggested by Mauro (col. 2 lines 31-33).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Nelson, US 2001/0011388, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025] and [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Reddemann, GB-2219928-A, newly cited].
Regarding claim 17:
Nelson in view of Baron teach The adjustable helmet of claim 15, as set forth above.
The modified Nelson does not meet the limitation wherein each limiting strap of the one or more limiting straps is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell.
However, Reddemann teaches providing a helmet shell 5 (“shell...5”; p. 6 line 9) wherein a limiting strap 10 (strap “10 prevents unintentional opening and holds...halves 6 and 7 together”; p. 6 lines 14-16) is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell (limiting strap 10 is “mounted in a recess” such that it does “not project above the outer contour 8” of the helmet shell 5 (p. 6 lines 17-19).
Reddemann further teaches the perimeter formed by the outer surface of the helmet shell (i.e. the “outer contour 8” of helmet shell 5) is arranged so as to receive an “inner contour” of an “outer shell” provided thereupon wherein “it is convenient for the inner contour of the outer shell to correspond to the outer contour of the inner shell” (p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1).
It 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 to have modified the modified Nelson such that each limiting strap of the one or more limiting straps is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell in order to permit convenient attachment of an additional outer shell thereto and/or to prevent either limiting strap from projecting beyond the perimeter, as suggested by Reddemann (p. 6 lines 17-19; p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Nelson, US 2001/0011388, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 19:
Nelson discloses The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Nelson further discloses further comprising: a first slot (see annotated Fig. 2 detail – b below) and a second slot 14e between the right-side portion and the rear portion, the second slot extending to the bottom of the helmet shell (see annotated Fig. 2 detail – b below) such that the right-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the second slot (as in annotated Fig. 2 detail – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
599
1280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nelson does not expressly disclose further comprising: a first slot between the left-side portion and the rear portion, the first slot extending to a bottom of the helmet shell such that the left-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the first slot; and a second slot between the right-side portion and the rear portion, the second slot extending to the bottom of the helmet shell such that the right-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the second slot.
However and in further view of Nelson:
Nelson Fig. 2 shows a portion of a first slot wherein the remainder of the first slot is obscured from view such that it cannot be determined from Fig. 2 alone whether the first slot extends to the bottom of the helmet shell in the same way that the second slot does.
It 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 to have modified the adjustable helmet of Nelson such that its first slot between the left-side portion and the rear portion is extending to a bottom of the helmet shell such that the left-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the first slot, as is the second slot in Fig. 2, in order to provide the helmet with similar expansive and contractive performance in both the left side of the helmet and also the right side of the helmet for a wearer whose head is symmetrical.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732