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
The amendment filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 06/17/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 1, "if" appears to read "is".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a first limitation "a diverter attached to the crown and arranged between the crown and the cap to divert an object from entering via one of the first through holes toward the cap" and a second limitation "the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the cap", which render the claim indefinite. The first limitation recites the diverter being configured to divert an object toward the cap, while the second limitation recites the diverter being configured to prevent the object from pressing the cap. The two limitations appear to be contradictory. For examination purposes, based on the original disclosure, the first limitation has been construed to be "a diverter attached to the crown and arranged between the crown and the cap to divert an object [[from]] entering via one of the first through holes away from the cap".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the space" at the end of the claim. The claim has previously set forth "a first inner space" and "a space designed to receive a user's head". It is unclear which space is being referred to. For examination purposes, "a space designed to receive a user's head" has been interpreted as "a second inner space designed to receive a user's head", and the limitation "the space" has been construed to be the second inner space.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "providing the helmet", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim is recited to be a "method for manufacturing the helmet". In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a "helmet" is an assembled, fully functional device. If the "helmet" has already been provided, then what is the manufacturing method intended to achieve? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 7 recites a first limitation "the diverter being arranged between the crown and the cap to divert the object from entering via one of the first through holes toward the cap" and a second limitation "the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the cap", which render the claim indefinite. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the object" in the claim. Second, the first limitation recites the diverter being configured to divert an object toward the cap, while the second limitation recites the diverter being configured to prevent the object from pressing the cap. The two limitations appear to be contradictory. For examination purposes, based on the original disclosure, the first limitation has been construed to be " the diverter being arranged between the crown and the cap to divert an object [[from]] entering via one of the first through holes away from the cap".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the space" at the end of the claim. The claim has previously recited "first inner space" and "space designed to receive a user's head". It is unclear which space is being referred to. For examination purposes, together with the above interpretation for claim 1, "the space designed to receive a user's head" has been interpreted as "the second inner space designed to receive a user's head", and the limitation "the space" has been construed to be the second inner space.
Claim 8 recites a first limitation "the diverting wall extending in a direction of the peak up to a top end of the crown" and a second limitation "wherein the top end is arranged between the cap and the inner wall of the crown so that any imaginary line tangent to the top end", which render the claim indefinite. As the "top end" is defined as a top end of "the crown", how can the top end of the crown be arranged between the cap and the crown itself? For examination purposes, based on the original disclosure, the first limitation has been construed to be "the diverting wall extending in a direction of the peak up to a top end of the diverting wall", and the second limitation has been construed to be "wherein the top end of the diverting wall is arranged between the cap and the inner wall of the crown so that any imaginary line tangent to the top end of the diverting wall".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said space" at the end of the claim. The claim has previously set forth "a first space" and "a space designed to receive a user's head". It is unclear which space is being referred to. For examination purposes, "a space designed to receive a user's head" has been interpreted as "a second space designed to receive a user's head", and the limitation "said space" has been construed to be the second space.
Claim 10 recites a first limitation "a diverter attached to the crown and arranged between the crown and the cap to divert an object from entering via one of the first through holes toward the cap" and a second limitation "the diverting wall preventing the external element from pressing against the cap", which render the claim indefinite. The first limitation appears to recite the diverter being configured to divert an object toward the cap, while the second limitation recites the diverter being configured to prevent the object from pressing the cap. The two limitations appear to be contradictory. For examination purposes, based on the original disclosure, the first limitation has been construed to be "a diverter attached to the crown and arranged between the crown and the cap to divert an object [[from]] entering via one of the first through holes away from the cap".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "top end", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structure is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be a top end of the diverting wall.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "bottom end", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structure is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be a bottom end of the diverting wall.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said space" at the end of the claim. The claim has previously recited "a first inner space" and "a space designed to receive a user's head". It is unclear which space is being referred to. For examination purposes, "a space designed to receive a user's head" has been interpreted as "a second inner space designed to receive a user's head", and the limitation "said space" has been construed to be the second inner space.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (JP S4220108 Y1) in view of Brockway (US 3,041,621 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a helmet (figs. 1-2; see English translation; para. 3) comprising:
a crown (helmet body 1; figs. 1-2; para. 3) having a peak (top 3; figs. 1-2; para. 3) and a base (a bottom; figs. 1-2; para. 3) provided with a crown wall (figs. 1-2) delineating several first through holes (holes 2; fig. 1; para. 3) separated by first studs (between the holes 2; fig. 1; para. 3) to form a first ventilation area (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2), the crown extending in a heightwise direction between the base and the peak (figs. 1-2) and the crown defining a first inner space (fig. 2);
a diverter (inverted funnel-shaped plate 4; fig. 2; para. 3) attached to the crown (fig. 2; para. 3) and arranged inside the crown to divert an object entering via one of the first through holes away from a user's head (see the relative positions of plate 4 and holes 2; fig. 2);
wherein the diverter has the diverting wall (see annotated fig. 2) disposed inside the crown in the first direction perpendicular to the heightwise direction (see annotated fig. 2), the diverting wall extending from a bottom end to a top end (see annotated fig. 2), the top end of the diverting wall being closer to the peak of the crown than the bottom end of the diverting wall (see annotated fig. 2), the bottom end of the diverting wall being closer to the crown than the top end of the diverting wall in the first direction (see annotated fig. 2), the diverter not blocking the airflow from the first through holes (see fig. 2);
wherein an inner wall of the crown and the diverter form a duct (see annotated fig. 2) opening out in a direction of the peak of the crown (see figs. 1-2) and flaring out in the direction of the peak of the crown (see figs. 1-2); and
wherein the top end of the diverter wall is arranged inside the inner wall of the crown (see annotated fig. 2) so that any imaginary line tangent to the top end of the diverter wall and passing through the first through holes passes through the crown without passing through a space designed to receive the user's head (see fig. 2), the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the user's head or reaching the space (see fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
798
1096
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from JP S4220108 Y1
Kim does not disclose wherein the helmet further comprising a cap attached to the crown and delineating a space designed to receive a user's head, the cap being disposed in the first inner space; the diverter arranged between the crown and the cap and configured to divert the object away from the cap, the diverter being distinct from the cap; wherein the diverting wall is disposed between the first through holes and the cap, the diverter not blocking an airflow from the first through holes to the cap; and wherein the top end of the diverting wall is arranged between the cap and the inner wall of the crown so that any imaginary line tangent to the top end and passing through the first through holes passes through the crown without passing through the space designed to receive the user's head delineated by the cap, the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the cap or reaching said space. However, Brockway, in an analogous art, teaches a helmet (figs. 1, 6; col. 2, ll. 39-42) comprising a helmet body comprising a crown (crown 3; fig. 1, 6; col. 2, ll. 39-42) defining a first inner space (fig. 6), and a detachable cap (a suspension harness formed by a plurality of headstraps 7 and detachable sweatband 21, 22; fig. 1, 6; col. 2, ll. 56-67; col. 3, ll. 4-8) attached to the crown (fig. 6; col. 2, ll. 56-60) and delineating a space designed to receive a user's head (figs. 1, 6), the cap being disposed in the first inner space (fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Kim, with wherein the helmet further comprising a cap attached to the crown and delineating a space designed to receive a user's head, the cap being disposed in the first inner space as taught by Brockway, in order to provide a detachable inner suspension harness with a sweatband to snuggly and comfortably secure the helmet on a user's head (col. 1, ll. 9-16). By this combination, the diverter would be arranged between the crown and the cap and configured to divert the object away from the cap, the diverter being distinct from the cap, and wherein the diverting wall would be disposed between the first through holes and the cap, the diverter not blocking an airflow from the first through holes to the cap; and wherein the top end of the diverting wall would be arranged between the cap and the inner wall of the crown so that any imaginary line tangent to the top end and passing through the first through holes passes through the crown without passing through the space designed to receive the user's head delineated by the cap, the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the cap or reaching said space.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the diverting wall being the rigid wall. However, per the Cambridge Dictionary, the term "plate" has a common meaning "a flat piece of something that is hard and does not bend". In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a rigid inverted funnel-shaped plate would hold its shape, preventing deformation and helping to direct rainwater away from the diverting wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected material for the inverted funnel-shaped plate 4 as disclosed by Kim, to be a rigid material commonly used for a plate, in order to prevent the diverting wall from deforming due to weathering, accumulation of rainwater or aging, thereby facilitating the diversion and drainage of rainwater out of the helmet body to ensure long-term durability. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Brockway, in combination, disclose the helmet according to claim 1. Kim does not disclose wherein the diverter is installed removable from the crown. However, as rainwater includes dust, dirt and other debris, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the diverter to be removably installed from the crown, in order to facilitate easy cleaning of the inverted funnel-shaped plate during long-term use. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPO 177, 179.
Regarding claim 7, Kim and Brockway, in combination, disclose the helmet according to claim 1, and Kim, in the context of describing the helmet, discloses a method for manufacturing the helmet comprising the following steps:
providing the helmet (figs. 1-2), the helmet comprising the crown (helmet body 1; figs. 1-2; para. 3) and the diverter (inverted funnel-shaped plate 4; fig. 2; para. 3), the crown having the peak (top 3; figs. 1-2; para. 3) and the base (a bottom; figs. 1-2; para. 3), the crown extending in the heightwise direction between the base and the peak (figs. 1-2), the crown being provided with a crown wall (figs. 1-2) delineating the several first through holes (holes 2; fig. 1; para. 3) separated by the first studs (between the holes 2; fig. 1; para. 3) to form a first ventilation area (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2), the crown defining the first inner space (fig. 2);
attaching the diverter to the crown (fig. 2; para. 3), the diverter being arranged inside the crown (fig. 2; para. 3) to divert an object entering via one of the first through holes the crown defining the first inner space (see the relative positions of plate 4 and holes 2; fig. 2).
In addition, as discussed above for claim 1, by combination of Kim and Brockway, the helmet would further comprise a cap delineating a space designed to receive a user's head, the diverter would be arranged between the crown and the cap to divert the object entering via one of the first through holes away from the cap, the diverter being distinct from the cap; wherein the diverter has the diverting wall disposed between the first through holes and the cap in the first direction perpendicular to the heightwise direction, the diverting wall extending from the bottom end to the top end, the top end of the diverting wall being closer to the peak of the crown than the bottom end of the diverting wall, the bottom end of the diverting wall being closer to the crown than the top end of the diverting wall in the first direction, the diverter not blocking the airflow from the first through holes to the cap, the diverting wall being the rigid wall; wherein the inner wall of the crown and the diverter form the duct opening out in the direction of the peak of the crown and flaring out in the direction of the peak of the crown; and wherein the top end of the diverter wall is arranged between the cap and the inner wall of the crown so that any imaginary line tangent to the top end of the diverter wall and passing through the first through holes passes through the crown without passing through the space designed to receive the user's head delineated by the cap, the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the cap or reaching the space (see the discussions for claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses a helmet (figs. 1-2; see English translation; para. 3) comprising:
a crown (helmet body 1; figs. 1-2; para. 3) having a peak (top 3; figs. 1-2; para. 3) and a base (a bottom; figs. 1-2; para. 3) provided with a crown wall (figs. 1-2) delineating several first through holes (holes 2; fig. 1; para. 3) separated by first studs (between the holes 2; fig. 1; para. 3) to form a first ventilation area (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2), the crown extending in a heightwise direction between the base and the peak (figs. 1-2) and the crown defining a first inner space (fig. 2);
a diverter (inverted funnel-shaped plate 4; fig. 2; para. 3) attached to the crown (fig. 2; para. 3) and arranged inside the crown to divert an object entering via one of the first through holes away from a user's head (see the relative positions of plate 4 and holes 2; fig. 2);
wherein the diverter has the diverting wall (see annotated fig. 2) disposed inside the crown in the first direction perpendicular to the heightwise direction (see annotated fig. 2), the diverting wall extending from a bottom end to a top end (see annotated fig. 2), the diverting wall defining at least one portion with an inclined surface (see annotated fig. 2) that is globally directed towards the peak of the crown from the bottom end to the top end (see annotated fig. 2), the diverter not blocking an airflow from the first through holes (see fig. 2);
wherein an inner wall of the crown and the diverter form a duct (see annotated fig. 2) opening out in a direction of the peak of the crown (see figs. 1-2); and
wherein the top end is arranged under the inner wall of the crown (see annotated fig. 2) so that any rectilinear external element passing in the first through holes and tangent to the top end passes through the crown without passing through the space designed to receive the user's head (see fig. 2), the diverting wall preventing the external element from pressing against the user's head or reaching said space (see fig. 2).
Kim does not disclose wherein the helmet comprising a cap attached to the crown and delineating a space designed to receive a user's head, the cap being disposed in the first inner space; the diverter arranged between the crown and the cap and configured to divert the object away from the cap, the diverter being distinct from the cap; wherein the diverting wall is disposed between the first through holes and the cap, the diverter not blocking an airflow from the first through holes to the cap; and wherein the top end is arranged between the cap and the inner wall of the crown so that any rectilinear external element passing in the first through holes and tangent to the top end passes through the crown without passing through the space designed to receive the user's head delineated by the cap, the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the cap or reaching said space. However, Brockway, in an analogous art, teaches a helmet (figs. 1, 6; col. 2, ll. 39-42) comprising a helmet body comprising a crown (crown 3; fig. 1, 6; col. 2, ll. 39-42) defining a first inner space (fig. 6), and a detachable cap (a suspension harness formed by a plurality of headstraps 7 and detachable sweatband 21, 22; fig. 1, 6; col. 2, ll. 56-67; col. 3, ll. 4-8) attached to the crown (fig. 6; col. 2, ll. 56-60) and delineating a space designed to receive a user's head (figs. 1, 6), the cap being disposed in the first inner space (fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Kim, with wherein the helmet further comprising a cap attached to the crown and delineating a space designed to receive a user's head, the cap being disposed in the first inner space as taught by Brockway, in order to provide a detachable inner suspension harness with a sweatband to snuggly and comfortably secure the helmet on a user's head (col. 1, ll. 9-16). By this combination, the diverter would be arranged between the crown and the cap and configured to divert the object away from the cap, the diverter being distinct from the cap, and wherein the diverting wall would be disposed between the first through holes and the cap, the diverter not blocking an airflow from the first through holes to the cap; and wherein the top end would be arranged between the cap and the inner wall of the crown so that any rectilinear external element passing in the first through holes and tangent to the top end passes through the crown without passing through the space designed to receive the user's head delineated by the cap, the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the cap or reaching said space.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the diverting wall being the rigid wall. However, per the Cambridge Dictionary, the term "plate" has a common meaning "a flat piece of something that is hard and does not bend". In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a rigid inverted funnel-shaped plate would hold its shape, preventing deformation and helping to direct rainwater away from the diverting wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected material for the inverted funnel-shaped plate 4 as disclosed by Kim, to be a rigid material commonly used for a plate, in order to prevent the diverting wall from deforming due to weathering, accumulation of rainwater or aging, thereby facilitating the diversion and drainage of rainwater out of the helmet body to ensure long-term durability. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Status of Claims
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the objection set forth in this Office action due to a similar reason as indicated in the office action mailed 02/17/2026.
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 as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered and addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that Kim discloses the inverted funnel plate which is a cap as well as a suspension system, Kim does not disclose or suggest the diverting wall being a rigid wall; as a cap, the plate is capable of deforming to fit the user's head and to absorb energy during an impact, and the skilled person deduces from Kim that a flexible or highly flexible material is used for the inverted funnel plate to adapt to the head shape and ensure a watertight seal with the shell, and the person skilled in the art would have no incentive to consider the teachings of Brockway.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Kim discloses the "inverted funnel-shaped plate" is intended for ventilation and guiding rainwater out of the hard hat, not as an impact-absorbing cap or a suspension. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deduce an "inverted funnel-shaped plate" in Kim as a flexible cap or a suspension system in the hard hat. It is noted that the inverted funnel-shaped plate 4 has a large-area open top 5 (fig. 2), which does not protect a wearer's head from impact from upward. In addition, per the common definition of "plate", one of ordinary skill in the art would consider Kim's "plate" as a "piece of something that is hard and does not bend" (Cambridge Dictionary), rather than a deformable "cap" or "suspension system" as Applicant asserted. It is also noted that a suspension system in a hard hat is generally formed by a set of elongated flexible members assembled to snuggly surround a wearer's head and generally can be adjusted, rather than an "inverted funnel-shaped plate". Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a plurality of approaches can be used to ensure a watertight seal between the inverted funnel-shaped plate and the shell; for example, using a gasket, sealant, welding, or soldering, etc. For the above reasons, the "inverted funnel-shaped plate" in Kim's teaching favors a hard plate member capable of maintaining its shape and guide water away rather than a flexible cap or suspension system. Applicant's arguments are not found persuasive.
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights