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 filed on 4/27/2026 has been received; Claims 1 & 3-23 are pending.
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 1, 3-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3-22 & 24-26 of copending Application No. 18/008/8692 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to the same subject matter of a helmet with a head mount suspended within the outer shell having a head engagement device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 3-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Svendsen (USPN 4,000,520).
Regarding Claim 1, Svendsen discloses a helmet (Figures 1 & 2), comprising: an outer shell (10); a head mount (22) suspended within the outer shell such that, in use, an air gap (gap, see annotated Figure 1 below) is provided between the head mount and the outer shell, the head mount comprising a head ring (18) that is configured to engage at least the forehead of a wearer of the helmet, and a plurality of straps (22), each strap of the plurality of straps configured to extend across the top of the head of a wearer of the helmet with the ends of each strap of the plurality of straps connected (via 28) to the outer shell on opposite sides of the head of the wearer of the helmet (Figure 5); wherein the helmet further comprises a head engagement device (24) that is mounted on a surface of the head mount, that is configured to face the head of the wearer of the helmet (Figures 1-5), the head engagement device comprising a crown region that is configured to be located between the top of the head of the wearer of the helmet and the straps of the head mount (Figures 1 & 2), a frontal region that is configured to overlap with the head ring (Figures 1-5), and an intermediate region that connects the crown region to the frontal region (Figures 1-5); the crown region of the head engagement device includes at least one hole opening (Figure 5, shown slits) through which at least one strap of the plurality of straps passes, to connect the head engagement device to the at least one strap such that the head engagement device can move relative to the straps of the head mount (Col. 3, lines 3-31); a sliding interface is provided between the straps of the head mount and the crown region of the head engagement device to enable sliding movement of the crown region of the head engagement device relative to the straps of the head mount (Col. 3, lines 3-31, sliding is possible due to slits for straps), and between the head ring and the frontal region of the head engagement device to enable sliding movement of the frontal region of the head engagement device relative to the head ring of the head mount (Col. 3, lines 3-31, sliding is possible due to slits for straps).
Regarding Claim 3, Svendsen discloses at least two straps of the plurality of straps are connected to each other (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device is connected to the head mount by at least one connector (Figure 5, the connector of the opening of the slit or 36) that engages with one strap of the plurality of straps.
Regarding Claim 5, Svendsen discloses wherein the at least one connector has a first end (the first end of slit of 36) and a second end (the second end of the slit of 36) that are both joined to the head engagement device at respective first and second locations on the head engagement device (Figure 5); and the one strap of the plurality of straps is located between the connector and the head engagement device in a region between the first and second locations on the head engagement device (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Svendsen discloses the one strap of the plurality of straps is not fixedly secured to any part of the connector such that the one strap can slide relative to the connector (Figure 5 & Col. 3, lines 3-31).
Regarding Claim 7, Svendsen discloses the connector is formed from an elongate section of material, optionally one of a cord, band or a tape (36).
Regarding Claim 8, Svendsen discloses plural connectors are formed from separate pieces of said material (36, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Svendsen discloses plural connectors are formed from sections of a single piece of said material (36).
Regarding Claim 10, Svendsen discloses the head mount comprises at least one strap (22) of the plurality of straps connected to the front of the outer shell extending in a direction towards the rear of the helmet (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device is provided as a single component (Col. 3, lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 12, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device is formed from plural separate sections (Col. 3, lines 7-13).
Regarding Claim 13, Svendsen discloses the frontal regional of the head engagement device is located between the forehead of the wearer of the helmet and the head ring (Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 14, Svendsen discloses the head ring is located between the forehead of the wearer of the helmet and the frontal regional of the head engagement device (Figure 1-5).
Regarding Claim 15, Svendsen discloses a front pad (16) positioned to be adjacent the forehead of the wearer of the helmet.
Regarding Claim 16, Svendsen discloses the front pad is connected to at least one of the head ring, the frontal region of the head engagement device and the outer shell (Figures 1 & 2, via 30).
Regarding Claim 18, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device comprises one or more pads (Col. 3, lines 7-13) provided on a surface of the head engagement device facing the head of a wearer of the helmet (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device comprises a plate of material (Figures 1-5), optionally shaped to conform to the head of a wearer of the helmet (Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 20, Svendsen discloses the head engagement device comprises a plurality of holes (Figure 5, slits shown) that may be configured to provide at least one of a location for a connector to join to the head engagement device and ventilation (slits are capable of providing at least one of a location for a connector to join to the head engagement device and ventilation).
Regarding Claim 21, Svendsen discloses the low friction sliding interface is provided by a low coefficient of friction between the surfaces of the head mount and the head engagement device (Col. 3, lines 3-31, sliding possible due to slits for straps).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen (USPN 4,000,520).
Regarding Claim 22, Svendsen does not specifically disclose in the absence of an impact on the helmet, the separation between the outer shell and the head mount at a location corresponding to the top of the head of a wearer provided by the air gap is at least 10mm, optionally at least 15mm, optionally at least 20mm, optionally at least 30mm, optionally at least 40mm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of space for the gap in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of thegap involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 & 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but, as they are drawn to the newly amended limitations not previously examined, are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
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 KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights