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 . Claims 1-7 are being treated on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(I). Figs. 1-14 do not have sufficient quality for examination and satisfactory reproduction. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification does not use proper section headings noting the various sections. For example, in page 1, the text "[t]he invention relates to a helmet and to its manufacturing method" should be under section heading "Field of the Invention" other than "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION", and section heading "Prior art" can be properly replaced with "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION". See MPEP 608.01(a).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 11-12, "the direction of the peak" appears to read "a direction of the peak" as it is the first time the limitation is recited.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a 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 2 recites the limitation "the facing first through holes in the first direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the facing first through holes" in the claim, and it is also unclear what is being referred to by "facing". For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the first through holes.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "each first through hole". The claim depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth "several first through holes". It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the previously defined several first through holes or different. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be each of the several first through holes.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "at least two second through holes". The claim depends from claim 2, and claim 2 has set forth "several second through holes". It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the previously defined several second through holes or different. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be each of the several second through holes.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation "providing a helmet and a diverter, the helmet comprising a crown and a cap", which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 has set forth the helmet comprising a diverter. As such, the limitation conflicts with claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be providing a diverter, a crown and a cap.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "supporting plane". It is unclear what Applicant is referring to by the term "supporting". Supporting what structure? In geometry, a plane is a 2D flat surface without thickness. Then how does a plane perform a "supporting" function? For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "first plane".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "cutting plane". It is unclear what Applicant is referring to by the term "cutting". Cutting what structure? For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "second plane".
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahn (DE 4205842 C1) in view of Brockway (US 3,041,621 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zahn discloses a helmet (fig. 1a; see English translation; paras. 0012, 0014) designed for working at heights and for mountaineering (capable of being used for working at heights and for mountaineering) comprising:
- a crown (outer shell 2; figs. 1a, 1c; para. 0014) having a peak (a top; see figs. 1a, 1c and annotated fig. 2; para. 0014) and a base (a bottom; see figs. 1a, 1c and annotated fig. 2; para. 0014) provided with a crown wall (figs. 1a, 1c, 2) delineating several first through holes (ventilation slots 9; figs. 1a, 1c, 2; para. 0015) separated by first studs (struts 10; figs. 1a, 1c, 2; paras. 0015, 0018) to form a first ventilation area (in the outer shell 2; figs. 1a, 1c, 2), the crown extending in a heightwise direction between the base and the peak (figs. 1a, 1c, 2);
- a diverter (inner shell 1; figs. 1a, 2; para. 0014) attached to the crown (figs. 1a, 2; para. 0014) and arranged under the crown (figs. 1a, 2) to divert an object entering via one of the first through holes (when the inner shell 1 is at a position of at least partially covering ventilation slots 9; see figs. 1a, 2; para. 0018);
wherein the diverter has a diverting wall (see annotated fig. 2) facing the first ventilation area (figs. 1a, 2; para. 0018) in a first direction (in a horizontal direction; see fig. 1a and see annotated fig. 2) perpendicular to the heightwise direction (figs. 1a, 2), the diverting wall extending in the direction of the peak up to a top end (see annotated fig. 2);
wherein an inner wall of the crown and the diverter form a duct (along struts 10; figs. 1a, 2) opening out in the direction of the peak of the crown (figs. 1a, 2) and flaring out in the direction of the peak of the crown (figs. 1a, 2); and
wherein the top end is arranged under the inner wall of the crown (see annotated fig. 2) so that any imaginary line tangent to the top end and passing through the first through holes passes through the crown without passing through a space designed to receive a user's head delineated by the helmet (a space defined under the inner shell 1; see annotated fig. 2), the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the user's head or reaching said space (as diverting the object away the space defined under the inner shell 1; see annotated fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from DE 4205842 C1
Zahn does not disclose wherein the helmet further comprising a cap delineating a space designed to receive a user's head, the diverter arranged between the crown and the cap, the diverter being distinct from the cap, 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 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) 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) delineating a space designed to receive a user's head (figs. 1, 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 Zahn, with wherein the helmet further comprising a cap delineating a space designed to receive a user's head 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 (Brockway; col. 1, ll. 9-16). By this combination, the diverter would be arranged between the crown and the cap, the diverter being distinct from the cap, and wherein the top end of the diverter 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.
Regarding claim 2, Zahn and Brockway, in combination, disclose the helmet according to claim 1, and Zahn further discloses wherein the diverter delineates several second through holes (ventilation slots 4; figs. 1a, 2; para. 0014) separated by second studs (see fig. 1a and annotated fig. 2) to define a second ventilation area (see fig. 1a and annotated fig. 2); wherein the second through holes have a smaller area (an area consisting of two adjacent ventilation slots 4; figs. 1a, 2) than an area of the first through holes (an area consisting of four adjacent ventilation slots 9; figs. 1a, 2).
Regarding claim 3, Zahn and Brockway, in combination, disclose the helmet according to claim 2, and Zahn further discloses wherein each first through hole is facing at least two second through holes in the first direction (each ventilation slots 4 facing at least two ventilating holes in the horizontal direction; see fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 4, Zahn and Brockway, in combination, disclose the helmet according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the diverter is installed removable from the crown (the inner shell 1 is inserted into the outer shell 2, being fixed by chin or neck straps when in use, therefore is removable; figs. 1a, 1b; para. 0020).
Claims 1 and 7 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) designed for working at heights and for mountaineering (capable of being used for working at heights and for mountaineering) 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);
- a diverter (inverted funnel-shaped plate 4; fig. 2; para. 3) attached to the crown (fig. 2; para. 3) and arranged under the crown to divert an object entering via one of the first through holes (see the relative positions of plate 4 and holes 2; fig. 2);
wherein the diverter has a diverting wall (see annotated fig. 2) facing the first ventilation area in a first direction (a horizontal direction in fig. 2) perpendicular to the heightwise direction (see annotated fig. 2), the diverting wall extending in the direction of the peak up to a top end (see annotated fig. 2);
wherein an inner wall of the crown and the diverter form a duct (see annotated fig. 2) opening out in the direction of the peak of the crown (see figs. 1-2) and flaring out in the direction of the peak of the crown (extending toward top 3; see fig. 2); and
wherein the top end is arranged under the inner wall of the crown (see annotated fig. 2) so that any imaginary line tangent to the top end and passing through the first through holes passes through the crown without passing through a space designed to receive the user's head delineated by the helmet (see fig. 2), the diverting wall preventing the object from pressing against the user's head or reaching said space (as diverting the object toward outside of helmet body 1; see annotated fig. 2).
Kim does not disclose wherein the helmet further comprising a cap delineating a space designed to receive a user's head, the diverter arranged between the crown and the cap, the diverter being distinct from the cap, 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 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) 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) delineating a space designed to receive a user's head (figs. 1, 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 delineating a space designed to receive a user's head 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, the diverter being distinct from the cap, and wherein the top end of the diverter 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
451
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from JP S4220108 Y1
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 a diverter (inverted funnel-shaped plate 4; fig. 2; para. 3) and a crown (helmet body 1; figs. 1-2; para. 3), the crown having a peak (top 3; figs. 1-2; para. 3) and a base (a bottom; figs. 1-2; para. 3) defining a supporting plane (see annotated fig. 2), the crown being 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);
- attaching the diverter to the crown (fig. 2; para. 3), the diverter being arranged under the crown (fig. 2; para. 3) to divert an object entering via one of the first through holes (see the relative positions of plate 4 and holes 2; fig. 2);
wherein the diverter is facing the first ventilation area in a first direction parallel to the supporting plane (see annotated fig. 2);
wherein in a cutting plane (see annotated fig. 2) perpendicular to the supporting plane (see annotated fig. 2) and in an observation in a heightwise direction perpendicular to the supporting plane (see annotated fig. 2) and directed from the supporting plane to the peak (see annotated fig. 2), an inclined surface of the diverter (on the diverting wall; see annotated fig. 2) moves away from a surface of the crown mainly in the direction of the peak of the crown (see annotated fig. 2) without passing through the space designed to receive the user's head delineated by the helmet (see annotated 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, and the inclined surface of the diverter would move away from the surface of the crown mainly in the direction of the peak of the crown without passing through the space designed to receive the user's head delineated by the cap.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (JP S4220108 Y1) and Brockway (US 3,041,621 A) and further in view of Musal (US 2004/0250339 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Brockway, in combination, disclose the helmet according to claim 1. Kim does not disclose the helmet comprising a shutter installed movable with respect to the first ventilation area between a closed position where the first through holes are closed by the shutter and an open position where the shutter is not facing the first through holes in the first direction. However, Musal, in an analogous art, teaches a helmet (helmet 10; fig. 1; para. 0023) comprising a crown (outer shell 12; fig. 1; para. 0023), the crown comprising a first ventilation area (comprising a plurality of vents 14; fig. 1; para. 0025), and a shutter (shutter plate 42; fig. 1-2; paras. 0023, 0027) installed movable with respect to the first ventilation area (figs. 1-2; paras. 0027-0028; claim 1) between a closed position (when the opening to each of the vents 14 are completely blocked; figs. 1, 9; para. 0031) where the first through holes are closed by the shutter (figs. 1, 9; para. 0031) and an open position (apertures 44 of the shutter plate are in complete alignment and registration with the vents 14; figs. 2-3, 5; para. 0030) where the shutter is not facing the first through holes in a first direction (figs. 2-3, 5; para. 0030). 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 the helmet comprising a shutter installed movable with respect to the first ventilation area between a closed position where the first through holes are closed by the shutter and an open position where the shutter is not facing the first through holes in the first direction as taught by Musal, in order to provide an improved helmet with a shutter to adjustably open and close the holes in the crown to allow a desired amount of air entering or exiting the helmet.
Status of Claims
Claim 6 is free of prior art rejection. None of the prior art of record alone or in combination discloses, teaches or reasonably suggests wherein the diverter is installed movable with respect to the crown between a protection position and another position, wherein the shutter is installed fixedly on the diverter, wherein the protection position is a position where the diverting wall is facing the first ventilation area in the first direction and wherein the other position corresponds to the closed position of the shutter. In Zahn, the diverter is movable with respect to the crown between a protection position and another position; however, there is no motivation to have the shutter fixedly installed on the diverter, because the diverter already has the function of a shutter as being movable between a first position where the first through holes are closed by the diverter and an open position where the diverter is not facing the first through holes. In addition, Kim does not disclose the diverter to be movable with respect to the crown between a protection position and another position, wherein the shutter is installed fixedly on the diverter. Modifying Kim to have the claimed feature would be impermissible hindsight based upon Applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Muskovitz (US 2007/0136932 A1) and Melofchik (US 2023/0180880 A1) each disclose a helmet comprising a crown, a diverter and a cap, the crown and the diverter each comprising a plurality of holes, and the diverter is configured to selectively open or close the plurality of holes in the crown.
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.
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 on (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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732