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 amendments filed with the written response received on July 24, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 4 and 18-21 have been amended; and claims 3, 6, and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, and 11-21.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed April 24, 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
Double Patenting rejection (as an approved Terminal Disclaimer is on file).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7, 15, 17, and 20 ( and claims 16-17 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the cage is encapsulated in a resin layer”. As claims 1 and 15 each recites, “a body that fully encapsulates the plurality of longitudinal beams and that [only] partially encapsulates the transverse beam”, it is unclear if the cage is also encapsulated in a resin layer or if the body comprises a resin layer that encapsulates the cage. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interrupted the limitation to mean that the body comprises a resin layer that encapsulates the cage. Applicant has argued that such a limitation is clear based on the specification, but Examiner respectfully disagrees. As written, the claim limitation is unclear as to what encapsulation is being referred to and Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to clarify.
Claims 15 and 20 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein a width of the transverse beam is less than or equal to approximately 2.5 millimeters”. The range is unclear. First, the range includes 0 mm and it is unclear how the width of the beam can be 0 mm and still be a structure. Second, it is unclear if the upper end of the range is 2.5 mm or if it is 2.5mm +/- 20% such that the range itself has an upper limit that is also a range. In summary, the endpoints of the range are unclear and it is unknown when infringement would occur.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentes (US 5481762) in view of Broersma (US 5119516).
Regarding claim 1, Gentes discloses a helmet (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a cage (30) defining a front end, a back end opposite the front end, a first lateral end and a second lateral end opposite the first lateral end (see annotated Fig. 2), the cage including: a plurality of longitudinal beams (18, 20) that extend between the back end of the cage and the front end of the cage (18, 20), the plurality of longitudinal beams including a first longitudinal beam (18) and a second longitudinal beam (20); and a transverse beam (16) that: extends between the first lateral end of the cage and the second lateral end of the cage (as seen in annotated Fig. 2), is coupled to the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam (as shown in Fig. 2 and via 24/26), and is tensilely loaded between the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam (Examiner notes this limitation is deemed a product-by-process limitation in the claim. Although the structure of helmet may be formed by a different process, the end product is the same as that of Applicant’s claimed invention. The process by which the end resultant product is constructed (i.e. tensile loading the transverse beam) is not germane to the end resultant product, absent any positively recited patentably defining structure. See MPEP 2113. Therefore, because Gentes the structure, Gentes anticipates or at least makes obvious the tensile loading of the transverse beam of the claimed invention as the ribs are deformable and the rib 16 is anchored to ribs 18 and 20 and the left and right sides of annular body 12, and so the transverse beam is can be tensilely loaded when a first end of the transverse beam is coupled to the first longitudinal beam and a second end of the transverse beam is anchored to the second longitudinal beam, see col. 3, lines 10-20) ; and a body (50) that fully encapsulates the plurality of longitudinal beams (see Figs. 3-5 and col. 4, lines 27-33), the body defining a plurality of vents (30), each vent of the plurality of vents being situated between different pairs of adjacent longitudinal beams of the plurality of longitudinal beams (see Figs. 4-5). ,
Gentes does not expressly disclose wherein the helmet body partially encapsulating the transverse beam, and the transverse beam extends through at least one of the one or more vents.
Broersma teaches a cycling helmet (210, Figs. 20-26) with beams wherein the helmet body (211) partially encapsulating the transverse beam (243, shown as partially encapsulated in Figs. 20-22), and the transverse beam extends through at least one of the one or more vents (221-224, see Figs. 20-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to only partially encapsulate the transverses beam(s) of Gentes such that it extends though the vents (i.e. enlarge the vents), as taught by Broersma, in order to provide larger vent openings for cooling purposes (see col. 6, lines 25-30 of Broersma).
Regarding claim 2, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses wherein the transverse beam (16) extends through at least two of the plurality of vents (as when modified by Broersma, the transverse beam(s) extend through multiple vents across the helmet).
Regarding claim 7, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses wherein the cage (30) is encapsulated in a resin layer (as the cage is encapsulated in the body, which is made of gas expanded synthetic resin, see claim 16).
Regarding claim 8, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses wherein at least part of the transverse beam (16) includes a non-circular cross-section (as seen in Fig. 2, at least parts of 16 are not circular).
Regarding claim 11, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses wherein the cage (30) further includes a second transverse beam (14) that extends away from the first lateral end of the cage and toward the second lateral end of the cage (as seen in annotated Fig. 2), the second transverse beam being coupled (via 24/26) to one of the plurality of longitudinal beams (18-20, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses wherein the transverse beam (16) and the second transverse beam (14) are anchored to different ones of the multiple longitudinal beams (as 14 and 16 are anchored to 18 and 20).
Regarding claim 14, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses wherein the transverse beam and the second transverse beam both extend through a first one of the at least one of the plurality of vents (as when modified by Broersma, the vents extend most of the distance from the front end to the back end of the helmet and thus the beams 16 and 14 of Gentes would both extend through each of the vents).
Regarding claim 18, Gentes discloses a helmet (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a cage (30) defining a first end (front end, see annotated Fig. 2), a second end opposite the front end (back end, see annotated Fig. 2), the cage including: a plurality of beams (14-20) that extend between the second end of the cage and the first end of the cage (seen in Figs. 2-4), the plurality of beams including a first beam (18) and a second beam (20); and a cross beam (16) that: extends between the first beam and the second beam (as seen in Fig. 2), and is coupled to the first beam and the second beam (as shown in Fig. 2 and via 24/26); and a body (50) that fully encapsulates the plurality of beams (interpreted to include first and second beams, see Figs. 3-5 and col. 4, lines 27-33) and that encapsulates the cross beam (see Figs. 3-5 and col. 4, lines 27-33), the body defining a plurality of vents (60), each vent of the plurality of vents being situated between different pairs of adjacent beams of the plurality of beams (see Figs. 4-5), and the first beam and the second beam are immediately adjacent to one another (as seen in Figs. 2-4).
Gentes does not expressly disclose wherein the helmet body partially encapsulating the cross beam, and wherein the cross beam extends through at least one of the plurality of vents.
Broersma teaches a cycling helmet (210, Figs. 20-26) with beams wherein the helmet body (211) partially encapsulating the cross beam (243, shown as partially encapsulated in Figs. 20-22), and the cross beam extends through at least one of the one or more vents (221-224, see Figs. 20-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to only partially encapsulate the cross beam(s) of Gentes such that it extends though the vents (i.e. enlarge the vents), as taught by Broersma, in order to provide larger vent openings for cooling purposes (see col. 6, lines 25-30 of Broersma).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Gentes and Broersma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Bradaigh (US 6292954).
Regarding claim 5, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least part of the transverse beam is a braided filament.
O’Bradaigh teaches assembly of cage structures for headgear wherein at least part of the transverse beam is a braided filament (see col. 6, lines 65-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the beams of the modified helmet of Gentes with an inner core and braided reinforcing fibers, as taught by O’Bradaigh in order “to retain the yarns of the core together until the protective headgear is formed” (see col. 7, lines 4-6 of O’Bradaigh).
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Gentes and Broersma, as applied to claims 1 and 18, above, and further in view of Butash (US 4594737).
Regarding claim 9, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least part of the transverse beam includes a thermoplastic polyurethane coating.
Butash teaches a cage element for headwear wherein exposed sections of the wire (22) include a thermoplastic coating (see col. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a thermoplastic coating on at least the exposed sections of the transverse beam of the modified helmet of Gentes as taught by Butash in order to protect the parts of cage that are exposed to the external environment to minimize degradation and/or glare.
The modified helmet of Gentes does not expressly disclose wherein the thermoplastic coating is thermoplastic polyurethane. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermoplastic polyurethane to coat the beam since TPU is s recyclable and avoids releasing harmful chemicals during production and disposal, and since 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. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 21, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses all the limitations of claim 18 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the cross beam located within one of the at least one of the plurality of vents includes a thermoplastic polyurethane coating.
Butash teaches a cage element for headwear wherein exposed sections of the wire (22) include a thermoplastic coating (see col. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a thermoplastic coating on at least the exposed sections of the transverse/cross beam of the modified helmet of Gentes as taught by Butash in order to protect the parts of cage that are exposed to the external environment to minimize degradation and/or glare.
The modified helmet of Gentes does not expressly disclose wherein the thermoplastic coating is thermoplastic polyurethane. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermoplastic polyurethane to coat the beam since TPU is s recyclable and avoids releasing harmful chemicals during production and disposal, and since 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. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentes, in view of Chiarella (US 5088130), and further in view of Broersma.
Regarding claim 15, Gentes discloses a helmet (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a cage (30) defining a front end, a back end opposite the front end, a first lateral end and a second lateral end opposite the first lateral end (see annotated Fig. 2), the cage including: a plurality of longitudinal beams (18, 20) that extend between the back end of the cage and the front end of the cage (seen in Figs. 2-4); and a transverse beam (16) that extends between the first lateral end of the cage and the second lateral end of the cage (as seen in Fig. 2), the transverse beam being coupled to two or more of the plurality of longitudinal beams (as shown in Fig. 2 and via 24/26), and a body (50) that fully encapsulates the plurality of longitudinal beams (see Figs. 3-5 and col. 4, lines 27-33), the body defining a plurality of vents (30), each vent of the plurality of vents being situated between different pairs of adjacent longitudinal beams of the plurality of longitudinal beams (see Figs. 4-5).
Gentes does not expressly disclose wherein a width of the transverse beam is less than or equal to approximately 2.5 millimeters; and wherein the helmet body partially encapsulating the transverse beam, and the transverse beam extends through at least one of the one or more vents.
Chiarella teaches a cyclist helmet with an internal reinforcing structure wherein a width of the transverse beam (22) is less than or equal to approximately 2.5 millimeters (see col. 6, lines 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the transverse beam of the modified helmet of Gentes less than or equal to approximately 2.5 millimeters as taught by Chiarella in order to maximize strength of the beam with a given material while minimizing the weight of the cage so that it does not add too much additional weight to the helmet and since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The modified helmet of Gentes does not expressly disclose wherein the helmet body partially encapsulating the transverse beam, and the transverse beam extends through at least one of the one or more vents.
Broersma teaches a cycling helmet (210, Figs. 20-26) with beams wherein the helmet body (211) partially encapsulating the transverse beam (243, shown as partially encapsulated in Figs. 20-22), and the transverse beam extends through at least one of the one or more vents (221-224, see Figs. 20-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to only partially encapsulate the transverses beam(s) of the modified helmet of Gentes such that it extends though the vents (i.e. enlarge the vents), as taught by Broersma, in order to provide larger vent openings for cooling purposes (see col. 6, lines 25-30 of Broersma).
Regarding claim 16, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses further comprising a rim (12) that extends around a periphery of the cage (as can be seen in Fig. 2), wherein the transverse beam (16) is further coupled to the rim (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 17-20).
Regarding claim 17, the modified helmet of Gentes discloses wherein the cage (30) is encapsulated in a resin layer (as the cage is encapsulated in the body which is made of gas expanded synthetic resin, see claim 16), including portions of the transverse beam extending through the at least one of the plurality of vents (as when modified, at least parts of the transverse beam are still encapsulated in the body which is made of the synthetic resin).
PNG
media_image1.png
549
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Gentes)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 19-20 are 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.
Claims 4 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record as none of them, alone or in combination, disclose wherein the transverse beam is wrapped around adjacent longitudinal beams in opposite directions. In addition to the prior art above, O’Bradaigh (US 6292954) teaches a transverse beam being joined to longitudinal beams by wrapping, but does not teach the transverse beam being wrapped in to adjacent longitudinal beams in an opposite direction. Modifying the prior art of record to have the claimed structure would be hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s own disclosure, therefore the claims are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed July 24, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 15-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive as Examiner unintentionally referred to the wrong reference of Garneau. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. The rejection has been updated with the proper reference of Chiarella.
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1 and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Gentes does not teach the transverse beam being tensiley loaded between the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam (Remarks, pages 7-8) as “The transverse ribs of Gentes do not "force the adjacent longitudinal beams towards each other" and do not function "like a suspension bridge" to distribute loads throughout the cage” (Remarks, p. 8, 1st full para). Examiner respectfully disagrees. First Examiner notes the limitation specifically recites, “a transverse beam that… is tensile loaded between the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam” and it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “force the adjacent longitudinal beams towards each other" and functioning "like a suspension bridge to distribute loads throughout the cage”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, as stated by Applicant, “In Gentes, the transverse ribs (14, 16) are integrally molded from a single planar plastic member. See Gentes, col. 3, 11. 10-30 and FIG. 1. When the planar member is deformed out of the plane to form a dome shape, the ribs create arched configurations that are coupled together by integrally formed fasteners… they are mechanically deformed into arches and held in that shape by the dome structure…. In Gentes, the ribs are integrally hinged to body 12 by hinges 22, deform out of plane to form arched configurations, and are then locked into position by integrally formed fasteners 24 and 26. See Gentes, col. 3, 11. 10-30 and FIG. 2. Once assembled, the fasteners mechanically interlock the ribs in their arched shape-the ribs' positions are fixed by the hinge/fastener arrangement” (Remarks, p. 8, 1st and 2nd full paras.). Examiner notes, when bending a structural member or sheet, it creates a mix of internal stresses: the outer side of the bend stretches under tensile stress, while the inner side squeezes under compressive stress. Thus as the transverse ribs are formed as a plane and then mechanically deformed into a dome shape (i.e. bending) and locked into position by fasteners, then the outer side of the bend is under tensilely loaded. Therefore, at least the outer side of the bend in the transverse beam between the longitudinal beams is tensilely loaded inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant. Examiner notes Applicant has not amended to distinguish over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues modifying Gentes would Broersma “would defeat the purpose of Gentes’s invention” (Remarks, p. 10, 2nd full para.) as “Gentes explains that "[t]hrough use of the frame 30 as an infrastructure about which the helmet 50 can be formed, it is possible to use larger air passages 60, as well as more air passages, without significantly reducing the helmet's ability to maintain its integrity upon impact." See id., col. 4, 11. 43-47. In other words, Gentes's stated design objective is that the fully embedded frame enables larger and more numerous vents-the frame serves as the infrastructure that makes the enlarged vents possible in the first place” (Remarks, p. 10, 4th full para.). Examiner respectfully disagrees a such a modification would not defeat the purpose of Gentes’ invention. First, Gentes does not state that the frame must be fully embedded or that the objective is to have a fully embedded frame and thus does not prohibit the beams from being exposed. Further, stated objectives of Gentes’ invention include “to provide for a novel, reinforced foam helmet”, “to provide a novel three-dimensional frame for use as the infrastructure of an injection molded bicycle helmet” and “to provide a novel three-dimensional infrastructure for use in a foam helmet which allows for the formation of a plurality of unobstructed air passages through the surface of the helmet” (see col. 2, lines 19-30 of Gentes). As such, only partially encapsulating the transverse beam(s) such they it extends through the vents thus enlarging the vents is well within the realm of Gentes’ objectives/purposes and actually contributes further to Gentes’ objectives. Further, Applicant has offered no proof that the proposed modification would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or that the proposed medication would change the principle of operation as the proposed modification would still provide a reinforced foam helmet with enlarged air passages that would protect the wearer’s head. Examiner notes Applicant has not amended to distinguish over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Lee (US 287137) teaches a cage structure with transverse beams wrapped around longitudinal beams; Garneau (US 2015/0096113) teaches a helmet with a cage with exposed transverse beams; and Katz (US 6343385) teaches a helmet with a cage where the beams are non-circular in cross section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights