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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 04/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-21 are presented.
Claims 1, 8, and 13 are presented in independent form and are amended.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-7, 11, 14, and 19-20 are amended.
Claim 21 is newly presented.
Claim 10 remains withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, and 13-21 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS/ARGUMENTS of 04/14/2026 (see p. 9-13 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Double Patenting (p. 10): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the amended claims, and Applicant’s remarks (see p. 10 lines 1-8 of the reply of 04/14/2026), the amendment to claim 8 and the cancelation of claim 12 are such that the double patenting rejections as applied in the previous Office action are moot.
Regarding Claim Objection (p. 10): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the amended claims, and Applicant’s remarks (see p. 10 lines 9-12 of the reply of 04/14/2026), the amendment to claim 4 overcomes the claim objection as applied in the previous Office action.
Regarding Rejection...under 35 USC § 102 (Baron) (p. 10-11): Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Rejection...under 35 USC § 102 (Nelson) (p. 11): Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Rejection...under 35 USC § 103 (p. 11-12): Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Dependent Claims (p. 12-13): Applicant’s arguments directed to “the allowability of the independent claims” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s further arguments directed to “additional novel features, or features similar to or cumulative with those already shown to be allowable...separately allowable” are fully considered and are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claim term “bill” of claims 1, 8, and 13.
The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claim term “forwardly-projecting portion” of claims 1 and 13.
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 “bill” of claims 1, 8, and 13 and the “forwardly-projecting portion” of claims 1 and 13 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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2, newly cited] in view of [Davidsson, US 5,083,321, newly cited] and [Feldmann, DE-4104194-A1, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Des Ouches discloses (Figs. 3 and 7):
An adjustable helmet (the helmet of Fig. 7), comprising:
a one-piece helmet shell (“shell”; Abstract; numeral 7 is provided therefor (Abstract, claims); however, numeral 7 is not shown in either of Figs. 3 and 7; elements of the shell are identified hereinbelow) including a front portion (see annotated Figs. 3 and 7 – a below; it is noted that for the purpose of clarity, the portions are identified in only Fig. 3 in the annotated Figs. 3 and 7 – a below; the portions are present in both Figs. 3 and 7), a top portion (see annotated Figs. 3 and 7 – a below), two side portions (see annotated Figs. 3 and 7 – a below), a rear portion (see annotated Figs. 3 and 7 – a below), wherein the rear portion is integral with the top portion (as in annotated Figs. 3 and 7 – a below);
a slot 17 (i.e. one of “notches 17”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4) in the helmet shell between the rear portion and a first one of the side portions (as in annotated Figs. 3 and 7 – a below), wherein the slot extends to a bottom of the helmet shell (“notches 17...open directly on the lower edge 10 of the rear portion”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4; Figs. 3 and 7) to separate the rear portion from the first one of the side portions along the slot (6th full paragraph of p. 4; Figs. 3 and 7), and wherein the slot facilitates outward deflection of the rear portion and the first one of the side portions when the helmet is donned (slots permit “the adjustment of the distance between the free ends” of elements 16 (Abstract) such that the slot 17 between the rear portion and the first one of the side portions is capable of facilitating deflection of rear portion and the first one of the side portions as the “distance between the free ends” of elements 16 is increased in a variety of contexts including when the helmet is donned); and
a limiting strap 22, wherein the limiting strap is configured to limit deflection of the first one of the side portions away from the rear portion (limiting strap 22 is configured such that distance adjustment between elements 16 is permitted thereby and is further configured such that portions of the limiting strap are capable of being “fixed” to each other (3rd paragraph of p. 5) so as to limit deflection of the first one of the side portions away from the rear portion when portions of the limiting strap are so “fixed”).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
1276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Des Ouches Figs. 3 and 7 does not expressly disclose the limiting strap 22 is connecting the rear portion to the first one of the side portions.
The limiting strap is connecting both side portions to each other (i.e. “integral with...one of the two” side portions and “passing through...23 secured to” the other of the side portions (3rd paragraph of p. 5). Looking to Fig. 7, limiting strap 22 appears to be connecting rear portion to both side portions via apparent mutual contact of limiting strap 22 with rear portion; however, Fig. 7 does not show the specific arrangement between the limiting strap and rear portion such that it cannot be determined from the drawing alone whether or not the limiting strap is connecting 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 helmet of Des Ouches such that the limiting strap is connecting the rear portion to the first one of the side portions, as appears to be the case in Fig. 7, in order to yield the predictable result of permitting the strap to achieve circumferential helmet adjustment via both the adjustment of the end-to-end distance between the side portions and also forward-backward adjustment of the end of the rear portion relative to the rest of the helmet when the limiting strap is tightened and loosened.
Des Ouches does not expressly disclose a bill projecting forwardly from the front portion
Davidsson teaches a helmet for sports (“headgear...for sports...safety helmet”; col. 1 lines 11-14) wherein a bill is projecting forwardly from a front portion (“front section 31 of the helmet can be shaped as a visor 39”; col. 6 lines 41-42; Figs. 1-4).
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 Des Ouches such that its shell is provided with a bill projecting forwardly from the front portion in order to yield the predictable result of a helmet whose bill is capable of protecting the wearer’s face and/or eye area from one or more of: sun, wind, precipitation, and/or impact from a foreign object.
Des Ouches does not expressly disclose and a forwardly-projecting portion extending below the bill from one of the side portions.
Feldmann teaches a helmet (Title; Abstract) for the sport of “cycling” (Abstract) wherein a forwardly-projecting portion 4 is extending below a front portion for a side portion (Figs. 1-2 and 4). Feldmann further teaches the forwardly-projecting portion is a “chin guard 4” (p. 3 line 8) which provides “good lateral protection” (p. 3 line 11) and is further configured to receive “cheek supports 6” which “relieve the area of the cranium in the event of a fall” (p. 3 line 12) and that the placement of the forwardly-projecting portion 4 is “back and down” is such that “there is no restriction on the field of vision” (p. 3 lines 12-13).
Though Feldmann is silent as to any express bill, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that in providing such a forwardly-projecting to the modified Des Ouches, one would place the forwardly-projecting portion below the bill in order to provide the forwardly-projecting portion in a location configured to cover a chin of a wearer insofar as the chin of the wearer of the modified Des Ouches would be below the bill of the modified Des Ouches when worn.
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 Des Ouches such that its shell is provided with a forwardly-projecting portion extending below the bill from one of the side portions in order to protect the chin of the wearer and/or permit further attachment of cheek supports thereto for fall protection whilst maintaining an unrestricted field of vision due to the arrangement of the forwardly-projecting portion, as taught by Feldmann.
The modified Des Ouches as applied above does not address the limitation wherein an upper terminal end of the slot is positioned as far forward on the helmet shell as at least part of the forwardly-projecting portion.
However and in further view of Des Ouches: Des Ouches teaches the slot 17 “extend[s] from the front portion 8,... through the summit portion 12” (6th full paragraph of p. 4) such that Des Ouches teaches the upper terminal end of the slot is at least as far forward as portion 8 of Des Ouches.
And in further view of Feldmann: in Feldmann, the forwardly-projecting portion 4 of Feldmann is provided such that at least a part thereof is provided further backward than a front aspect of the helmet (Figs. 1-2 and 4).
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 Des Ouches such that the upper terminal end of the slot is positioned as far forward on the helmet shell as at least part of the forwardly-projecting portion in order to yield the predictable result of affording head, neck, and/or face protection, via the at least part of the forwardly-projecting portion, in a region of the helmet that is further backward on the helmet than is the upper terminal end of the slot.
Regarding claim 4:
Des Ouches in view of Davidsson and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 1.
Des Ouches further discloses wherein the slot extends from an outer surface of the helmet through an entire thickness of the helmet (Figs. 3 and 7; the paragraph spanning p. 3-4).
Regarding claim 5:
Des Ouches in view of Davidsson and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 1.
Des Ouches further discloses further comprising a liner (“shock-absorbing cap”; Abstract; numeral 6 is provided therefor (Abstract, claims); however, numeral 6 is not shown in Figs. 3 and 7) positioned within an interior of the helmet shell (Abstract; Figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 6:
Des Ouches in view of Davidsson and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 1.
Des Ouches further discloses wherein the slot is a first slot, and the helmet shell further comprises a second slot 17 (i.e. the other of “notches 17”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4) between the rear portion and a second side portion of the two side portions (as in annotated Figs. 3 and 7 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1), wherein the second slot extends to the bottom of the helmet shell (“notches 17...open directly on the lower edge 10 of the rear portion”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4; Figs. 3 and 7) to separate the rear portion from the second side portion along the slot (6th full paragraph of p. 4; Figs. 3 and 7).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2], [Davidsson, US 5,083,321], and [Feldmann, DE-4104194-A1] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Nelson, US 2001/0011388, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 2:
Des Ouches in view of Davidsson and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 1.
Des Ouches does not expressly disclose wherein the helmet shell comprises a material selected and configured to bias the helmet toward a resting configuration that is smaller than a smallest-sized head for which the helmet is configured.
Nelson teaches a sports helmet (para 13) comprising a helmet shell 14 comprises a material (the material of the shell) forming a top portion 14a and a rear portion 14c, the rear portion is outwardly deflectable relative to a side portion 14b (para 30) between a resting configuration (a configuration where the 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 configuration) and an expanded position (a position wherein the “radius of curvature” is increased “to accommodate wider head shapes” so as to increase “width of the slots”; para 30), the material is selected and configured to biases the helmet toward the resting configuration (shell 14 is configured such that when in the expanded position, the material provides a “restoring force of the shell layer 14 causes the...helmet to hug the human head” (para 30) so as to bias the helmet toward the resting configuration) that is smaller than a smallest-sized head for which the helmet is configured (it is noted the resting configuration is smaller than the expanded position and the helmet is configured such that a wearer having a smaller head than the resting configuration is capable of wearing the helmet due to helmet in the expanded position being able to accommodate such a smaller head such that the limitation “is smaller than a smallest-sized head for which the helmet is configured” is met).
Nelson further teaches “Thus, the...helmet...maintains its position” and “does not need to be adjusted very often” (para 30).
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 helmet of Des Ouches such that the helmet shell comprises a material selected and configured to bias the helmet toward a resting configuration that is smaller than a smallest-sized head for which the helmet is configured in order to assist in maintaining helmet position and/or reduce the frequency of readjustment necessity, as suggested by Nelson (para 30).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2], [Davidsson, US 5,083,321], and [Feldmann, DE-4104194-A1] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Reddemann, GB-2219928-A, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 02/04/2026].
Regarding claim 7:
Des Ouches in view of Davidsson and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Des Ouches does not expressly disclose wherein the limiting strap is positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell.
In applying art to claim 1, element 22 of Des Ouches is mapped to the claimed limiting strap (see above treatment of claim 1). Element 22 of Des Ouches is not positioned entirely within a perimeter formed by an outer surface of the helmet shell as claimed (see Des Ouches Fig. 7).
However and in further view of Des Ouches:
Des Ouches as embodied in the final paragraph of p. 5 teaches a limiting element (i.e. one of “flexible connecting elements...act as...limiter”) wherein “the flexible fins can be connected locally to each other by flexible connecting elements, substantially elastic, textile webbing type, elastomerized plastic or rubber. These connecting elements do not call into question the flexibility of the structure, but act as spacing limiter during an impact, thanks to their own yield strength”; in like manner, claim 7 teaches a limiting element (i.e. one of “flexible connecting elements”) wherein “flexible fins (16) are locally connected to each other by flexible connecting elements, substantially elastic, textile webbing type, elastomerized plastic or rubber”.
Des Ouches does not state any limiting element is a strap, nor does Des Ouches provide specificity as to whether or not such limiting element(s) is/are positioned within a perimeter as claimed.
However, Reddemann teaches a helmet (Title; abstract) for sports (including but not limited to participating in a sport such as air racing when piloting an aircraft; in addition the helmet is capable of use in a plurality of additional contexts including whilst participating in another sport while wearing the helmet) wherein a limiting (“prevents” separation of the portions 6 and 7; p. 6 line 15) element 10 is a flexible (“elastic”; p. 6 line 14) connecting element 10 is comprising a limiting strap 10 (“band”; p. 6 line 14) and the limiting strap 10 is positioned entirely within (“mounted in a recess so that” it does “not project above the outer contour 8” of the helmet shell) a perimeter 8 formed by an outer surface of a helmet shell 6, 7 (i.e. the combined “halves 6 and 7”; p. 6 line 13).
Reddemann further teaches the limiting strap is configured to prevent unintentional separation of shell portions (p. 6 line 15) and its position entirely within the perimeter is such that the perimeter is configured 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 Des Ouches such that in addition to limiting strap 22 it is provided with a further limiting strap connecting the rear portion to the first one of the side portions wherein the further limiting strap is configured to limit deflection of the first one of the side portions away from the rear portion in order to act as a spacing limiter during an impact due to the yield strength of the further limiting strap, a motivation found within Des Ouches (final paragraph of p. 5 of Des Ouches) whilst preventing undesirable excessive separation of the first one of the side portions away from the rear portion, wherein a motivation to prevent undesirable excessive separation is found in both Des Ouches and also Reddemann (final paragraph of p. 5 of Des Ouches; p. 6 line 15 of Reddemann) while also permitting convenient attachment of an additional outer shell thereto and/or to prevent the limiting strap from projecting beyond the perimeter, as suggested by Reddemann (p. 6 lines 17-19; p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1 of Reddemann).
In adopting the modification, the limitations of both claims 1 and 7 would be met insofar as the further limiting strap as explained in the preceding paragraph would be arranged as claimed.
Or:
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 Des Ouches such that instead of limiting strap 22 it is provided with a limiting strap connecting the rear portion to the first one of the side portions wherein the limiting strap is configured to limit deflection of the first one of the side portions away from the rear portion in order to act as a spacing limiter during an impact due to the yield strength of the limiting strap, a motivation found within Des Ouches (final paragraph of p. 5 of Des Ouches) whilst preventing undesirable excessive separation of the first one of the side portions away from the rear portion, wherein a motivation to prevent undesirable excessive separation is found in both Des Ouches and also Reddemann (final paragraph of p. 5 of Des Ouches; p. 6 line 15 of Reddemann) while also permitting convenient attachment of an additional outer shell thereto and/or to prevent the limiting strap from projecting beyond the perimeter, as suggested by Reddemann (p. 6 lines 17-19; p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1 of Reddemann).
In adopting the modification, the limitations of both claims 1 and 7 would be met insofar as the limiting strap as explained in the preceding paragraph would be arranged as claimed.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2, newly cited] in view of [Davidsson, US 5,083,321, newly cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Des Ouches discloses (Fig. 3):
An adjustable helmet (the helmet of Fig. 3), comprising:
a helmet shell (“shell”; Abstract; numeral 7 is provided therefor (Abstract, claims); however, numeral 7 is not shown in Fig. 3; elements of the shell are identified hereinbelow) including a front portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – b below), a top portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – b below), a left-side portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – b below), a right- side portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – b below), and a rear portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – b below);
a liner (“shock-absorbing cap”; Abstract; numeral 6 is provided therefor (Abstract, claims); however, numeral 6 is not shown in Fig. 3; the location of the liner is identified in annotated Fig. 3 – b below) positioned in an interior of the helmet (Abstract; Fig. 3);
a first slot 17 (i.e. one of “notches 17”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4), wherein the first slot extends from a first terminal end (see annotated Fig. 3 – b below), between the left- side portion and the rear portion, to a bottom of the helmet shell (“notches 17...open directly on the lower edge 10 of the rear portion”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4; Figs. 3 and 7) to separate the left-side portion from the rear portion along the first slot (as in annotated Fig. 3 – b below); and
a second slot 17 (i.e. the other of “notches 17”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4) , wherein the second slot extends from a second terminal end (see annotated Fig. 3 – a below), between the right-side portion and the rear portion, to the bottom of the helmet shell (“notches 17...open directly on the lower edge 10 of the rear portion”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4; Figs. 3 and 7) to separate the right-side portion from the rear portion along the second slot (as in annotated Fig. 3 – b below);
wherein:
the first slot and the second slot facilitate outward deflection of the rear portion when the helmet is donned (first slot 17 and second slot 17 define the “three flexible fins 16” (6th full paragraph of p. 4) such that the rear portion is flexible (as evidenced by its comprising one of the flexible fins) and is capable of deflection as described in the final full paragraph of p. 2: “a deflection of the fin...related to the anatomy of the head...allow...head size adjustment” such that the first and second slot facilitate outward deflection of the rear portion when the helmet is donned)
the first terminal end is farther forward along the helmet shell than any other portion of the first slot (6th full paragraph of p. 4; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
551
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Des Ouches does not expressly disclose and a bill projecting forwardly from the front portion.
Davidsson teaches a helmet for sports (“headgear...for sports...safety helmet”; col. 1 lines 11-14) wherein a bill is projecting forwardly from a front portion (“front section 31 of the helmet can be shaped as a visor 39”; col. 6 lines 41-42; Figs. 1-4).
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 helmet of Des Ouches such that its shell is provided with a bill projecting forwardly from the front portion in order to yield the predictable result of a helmet whose bill is capable of protecting the wearer’s face and/or eye area from one or more of: sun, wind, precipitation, and/or impact from a foreign object.
Regarding claim 9:
Des Ouches in view of Davidsson teach The adjustable helmet of claim 8, as set forth above.
Des Ouches further discloses wherein the helmet shell is a single piece (Fig. 3), and wherein the rear portion is integral with the top portion (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2] and [Davidsson, US 5,083,321] claim 8 above, and further in view of [Reddemann, GB-2219928-A, previously cited; refer to the PTO-892 of 02/04/2026] and [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on the IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 11:
Des Ouches in view of Davidsson teach The adjustable helmet of claim 8, as set forth above.
Des Ouches 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, 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; the one or more limiting straps comprises a first limiting strap and a second limiting strap; an entirety of the first limiting strap is positioned lower than a lower edge of the front portion; and an entirety of the second limiting strap is positioned lower than the lower edge of the front portion.
However and in further view of Des Ouches:
Des Ouches as embodied in the final paragraph of p. 5 teaches a limiting element (i.e. one of “flexible connecting elements...act as...limiter”) wherein “the flexible fins can be connected locally to each other by flexible connecting elements, substantially elastic, textile webbing type, elastomerized plastic or rubber. These connecting elements do not call into question the flexibility of the structure, but act as spacing limiter during an impact, thanks to their own yield strength”; in like manner, claim 7 teaches a limiting element (i.e. one of “flexible connecting elements”) wherein “flexible fins (16) are locally connected to each other by flexible connecting elements, substantially elastic, textile webbing type, elastomerized plastic or rubber”.
Des Ouches does not state any limiting element is a strap, nor does Des Ouches provide specificity as to whether or not such limiting element(s) is/are positioned within a perimeter as claimed or positioned lower than the lower edge of the front portion as claimed.
However, Reddemann teaches a helmet (Title; abstract) for sports (including but not limited to participating in a sport such as air racing when piloting an aircraft; in addition the helmet is capable of use in a plurality of additional contexts including whilst participating in another sport while wearing the helmet) wherein a limiting (“prevents” separation of the portions 6 and 7; p. 6 line 15) element 10 is a flexible (“elastic”; p. 6 line 14) connecting element 10 is comprising a limiting strap 10 (“band”; p. 6 line 14) and the limiting strap 10 is positioned entirely within (“mounted in a recess so that” it does “not project above the outer contour 8” of the helmet shell) a perimeter 8 formed by an outer surface of a helmet shell 6, 7 (i.e. the combined “halves 6 and 7”; p. 6 line 13).
Reddemann further teaches the limiting strap is configured to prevent unintentional separation of shell portions (p. 6 line 15) and its position entirely within the perimeter is such that the perimeter is configured 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 Des Ouches such that it is 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, 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; the one or more limiting straps comprises a first limiting strap and a second limiting strap in order to for the first limiting strap and the second limiting strap to each act as a spacing limiter during an impact due to the yield strength of each limiting strap, a motivation found within Des Ouches (final paragraph of p. 5 of Des Ouches) whilst preventing undesirable excessive separation of the side portions away from the rear portion, wherein a motivation to prevent undesirable excessive separation is found in both Des Ouches and also Reddemann (final paragraph of p. 5 of Des Ouches; p. 6 line 15 of Reddemann) while also permitting convenient attachment of an additional outer shell thereto and/or to prevent each limiting strap from projecting beyond the perimeter, as suggested by Reddemann (p. 6 lines 17-19; p. 4 line 34 – p. 5 line 1 of Reddemann).
Regarding the limitation an entirety of the first limiting strap is positioned lower than a lower edge of the front portion; and an entirety of the second limiting strap is positioned lower than the lower edge of the front portion.
Baron teaches a sports helmet (Abstract, title) wherein an entirety of a first limiting strap 60 (i.e. one of 60; Figs. 1-5) is positioned lower than a lower edge of a front portion (Fig. 4; wherein it is noted the two straps 60 shown connected to the shell in Fig. 6 are each entirely lower than the lower edge of the front portion wherein said lower edge of said front portion is intersecting the lead line from the rightmost numeral 58 in Fig. 4); and an entirety of a second limiting strap is positioned lower than the lower edge of the front portion (in the same manner as described above in relation to the first limiting strap).
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 Des Ouches such that an entirety of the first limiting strap is positioned lower than a lower edge of the front portion; and an entirety of the second limiting strap is positioned lower than the lower edge of the front portion in order to yield the predictable result of each limiting strap acting as a spacing limiter during an impact due to the yield strength of each limiting strap at the location lower than the lower edge of the front portion whilst preventing undesirable excessive separation of the side portions away from the rear portion at the location lower than the lower edge of the front portion.
And/or
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 Des Ouches such that an entirety of the first limiting strap is positioned lower than a lower edge of the front portion; and an entirety of the second limiting strap is positioned lower than the lower edge of the front portion in order to provide the helmet with each limiting strap acting as a spacing limiter during an impact due to the yield strength of each limiting strap whilst preventing undesirable excessive separation of the side portions away from the rear portion. It is noted that a person of ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to arrange the first and second limiting straps relative to the lower edge and would have expected the first and second limiting straps to afford the capability of each limiting strap acting as a spacing limiter during an impact due to the yield strength of each limiting strap whilst preventing undesirable excessive separation of the side portions away from the rear portion if the first and second limiting straps were arranged as claimed based on the teachings of Baron that providing limiting straps so arranged is one acceptable arrangement therefor.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2, newly cited] in view of [Nelson, US 2001/0011388, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/08/2025], [Davidsson, US 5,083,321, newly cited] and [Feldmann, DE-4104194-A1, newly cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Des Ouches discloses (Fig. 3):
An adjustable helmet (the helmet of Fig. 3), comprising:
a helmet shell (“shell”; Abstract; numeral 7 is provided therefor (Abstract, claims); however, numeral 7 is not shown in Fig. 3; elements of the shell are identified hereinbelow) including a front portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – c below), a top portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – c below), a rear portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – c below) a left-side portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – c below), and a right-side portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – c below), wherein:
the rear portion is outwardly deflectable relative to at least one of the left-side portion or the right-side portion (first slot 17 and second slot 17 define the “three flexible fins 16” (6th full paragraph of p. 4) such that the rear portion is flexible (as evidenced by its comprising one of the flexible fins) and is capable of deflection as described in the final full paragraph of p. 2: “a deflection of the fin...related to the anatomy of the head...allow...head size adjustment” such that rear portion is outwardly deflectable to at least one of the left-side portion or the right-side portion) between a resting position (a position where the rear portion is not so deflected) and an expanded position (a position where the rear portion is so deflected); the expanded position comprises at least part of the rear portion being deflected away from the front portion and the at least one of the left-side portion or the right-side portion (by virtue of its capability of being deflected related to head anatomy to allow for head size adjustment as described in the final full paragraph of p. 2); the helmet shell comprises a material (the material of the shell) forming at least the top portion and the rear portion (Fig. 3).
Des Ouches does not expressly disclose the material forming at least the top portion and the rear portion; and the material biases the rear portion to the resting position.
Nelson teaches a sports helmet (para 13) comprising a helmet shell 14 comprises a material (the material of the shell) forming a top portion 14a and a rear portion 14c, the rear portion is outwardly deflectable relative to a side portion 14b (para 30) between a resting position (a position where the 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 (a position wherein the “radius of curvature” is increased “to accommodate wider head shapes” so as to increase “width of the slots”; para 30), the material biases the rear portion to the resting position (shell 14 is configured such that when in the expanded position, the material provides a “restoring force of the shell layer 14 causes the...helmet to hug the human head” (para 30) so as to bias the rear portion to the resting position.
Nelson further teaches “Thus, the...helmet...maintains its position” and “does not need to be adjusted very often” (para 30).
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 helmet of Des Ouches such that the material biases the rear portion to the resting position in order to assist in maintaining helmet position and/or reduce the frequency of readjustment necessity, as suggested by Nelson (para 30).
PNG
media_image3.png
544
772
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Des Ouches does not expressly disclose the helmet shell including a bill projecting forwardly from the front portion.
Davidsson teaches a helmet for sports (“headgear...for sports...safety helmet”; col. 1 lines 11-14) wherein a bill is projecting forwardly from a front portion (“front section 31 of the helmet can be shaped as a visor 39”; col. 6 lines 41-42; Figs. 1-4).
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 Des Ouches such that its shell is provided with a bill projecting forwardly from the front portion in order to yield the predictable result of a helmet whose bill is capable of protecting the wearer’s face and/or eye area from one or more of: sun, wind, precipitation, and/or impact from a foreign object.
Des Ouches does not expressly disclose wherein: at least one of the left-side portion or the right-side portion comprises a forwardly- projecting portion extending below the bill and spaced apart from the bill.
Feldmann teaches a helmet (Title; Abstract) for the sport of “cycling” (Abstract) wherein a forwardly-projecting portion 4 is extending below a front portion for a side portion (Figs. 1-2 and 4). Feldmann further teaches the forwardly-projecting portion is a “chin guard 4” (p. 3 line 8) which provides “good lateral protection” (p. 3 line 11) and is further configured to receive “cheek supports 6” which “relieve the area of the cranium in the event of a fall” (p. 3 line 12) and that the placement of the forwardly-projecting portion 4 is “back and down” is such that “there is no restriction on the field of vision” (p. 3 lines 12-13).
Though Feldmann is silent as to any express bill, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that in providing such a forwardly-projecting to the modified Des Ouches, one would place the forwardly-projecting portion below the bill and spaced apart from the bill in order to provide the forwardly-projecting portion in a location configured to cover a chin of a wearer insofar as the chin of the wearer of the modified Des Ouches would be below the bill of the modified Des Ouches and spaced apart from the bill of the modified Des Ouches when worn.
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 Des Ouches such that its shell is provided with wherein: at least one of the left-side portion or the right-side portion comprises a forwardly- projecting portion extending below the bill and spaced apart from the bill in order to protect the chin of the wearer and/or permit further attachment of cheek supports thereto for fall protection whilst maintaining an unrestricted field of vision due to the arrangement of the forwardly-projecting portion, as taught by Feldmann.
Regarding claim 14:
Des Ouches in view of Nelson, Davidsson, and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Des Ouches further discloses wherein: each of the left-side portion and the right-side portion are outwardly deflectable relative to the rear portion (the final full paragraph of p. 2; the 6th full paragraph of p. 4).
Regarding claim 18:
Des Ouches in view of Nelson, Davidsson, and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Des Ouches further discloses further comprising a liner (“shock-absorbing cap”; Abstract; numeral 6 is provided therefor (Abstract, claims); however, numeral 6 is not shown in Fig. 3) positioned within an interior of the helmet shell (Abstract; Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 19:
Des Ouches in view of Nelson, Davidsson, and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Des Ouches further discloses further comprising: a first slot 17 (i.e. one of “notches 17”; 6th full paragraph of p. 4) between the left-side portion and the rear portion, the first slot extending from a first terminal end of the first slot (see annotated Fig. 3 – d below) to a bottom of the helmet shell (Fig. 3) such that the left- side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the first slot (as in annotated Fig. 3 – d below); and a second slot 17 between the right-side portion and the rear portion, the second slot extending from a second terminal end of the second slot (see annotated Fig. 3 – d below) to the bottom of the helmet shell (Fig. 3) such that the right-side portion and the rear portion are separated from each other along the second slot (as in annotated Fig. 3 – d below).
PNG
media_image4.png
544
754
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20:
Des Ouches in view of Nelson, Davidsson, and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Des Ouches further discloses wherein the front portion, the top portion, the left-side portion, the right-side portion, and the rear portion together form a single integrated structure (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21:
Des Ouches in view of Nelson, Davidsson, and Feldmann teach The adjustable helmet of claim 19, as set forth above.
Des Ouches further discloses wherein the first terminal end is farther forward (the 6th full paragraph of p. 4; Fig. 3) along the helmet shell than a bottom terminal opening (see annotated Fig. 3 – e below) of the first slot.
PNG
media_image5.png
544
911
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2], [Nelson, US 2001/0011388], [Davidsson, US 5,083,321] and [Feldmann, DE-4104194-A1] as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of [Baron, CA 2749912, provided on the IDS of 04/08/2025].
Regarding claim 15:
Des Ouches in view of Nelson, Davidsson, and Feldman teach The adjustable helmet of claim 13, as set forth above.
Des Ouches 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.
However and in further view of Des Ouches:
Des Ouches as embodied in the final paragraph of p. 5 teaches a limiting element (i.e. one of “flexible connecting elements...act as...limiter”) wherein “the flexible fins can be connected locally to each other by flexible connecting elements, substantially elastic, textile webbing type, elastomerized plastic or rubber. These connecting elements do not call into question the flexibility of the structure, but act as spacing limiter during an impact, thanks to their own yield strength”; in like manner, claim 7 teaches a limiting element (i.e. one of “flexible connecting elements”) wherein “flexible fins (16) are locally connected to each other by flexible connecting elements, substantially elastic, textile webbing type, elastomerized plastic or rubber”.
Des Ouches does not state any limiting element is a strap.
However, Baron teaches a sports helmet (Title; Abstract) comprising limiting straps 60 (configured for “preventing the plurality of panel portions from separating from one-another”; p. 11 lines 10-11) wherein one of said limiting straps 60 spans a slot between a left-side portion 22 and a rear portion 34 (Fig. 5) and another of said limiting straps 60 spans a slot between a right-side portion 28 and the rear portion 34 (Fig. 5).
Baron further teaches the limiting straps permit relative movement of panel portions (p. 11 lines 13-15) and also prevent panel portions from separating from one another (p. 11 lines 10-11).
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 Des Ouches such that it is provided with one or more 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 panels portions while preventing them from becoming entirely separated from one another, as suggested by Baron (p. 11 lines 13-15; p. 11 lines 10-11).
And/or
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 Des Ouches such that it is provided with one or more limiting straps connecting the left-side portion to the rear portion and connecting the right- side portion to the rear portion in order for the limiting straps to act as spacing limiters during an impact, thanks to their own yield strength, a motivation found within Des Ouches (final paragraph of p. 5 of Des Ouches). One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with one or more decision(s) as to how, specifically, to provide limiting connecting elements as described in Des Ouches p. 5 and claim 7 and would have recognized that providing them as straps would be one acceptable arrangement thereof based on the teachings of Baron.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2], [Nelson, US 2001/0011388], [Davidsson, US 5,083,321], [Feldmann, DE-4104194-A1], and [Baron, CA 2749912] 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:
Des Ouches in view of Nelson, Davidsson, Feldmann, and Baron teach The adjustable helmet of claim 15, as set forth above.
The modified Des Ouches 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 Des Ouches 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 [Des Ouches, WO-2009095550-A2], [Nelson, US 2001/0011388], [Davidson, US 5,083,321], [Feldmann, DE-4104194-A1], and [Baron, CA 2749912] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Reddemann, GB-2219928-A, previously cited].
Regarding claim 17:
Des Ouches in view of Nelson, Davidsson, Feldmann, and Baron teach The adjustable helmet of claim 15, as set forth above.
The modified Des Ouches 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 Des Ouches 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights