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 .
Applicant’s pre-amendment of 7/9/2025 is received. Claims 1-9 are amended and a specification amendment was entered. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the crown comprising a number of cavities and grooves on both an internal surface and an external surface of the ring-shaped body (claim 3) and an internal protection element of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: attachment elements in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites the crown comprises, on both an internal and external surface of the ring-shaped body, a number of cavities and grooves. The specification (pages 8 and 9) discloses this limitation. However, there is no standard provided for determining the scope of “a number” of cavities and grooves.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. Claim 3 recites the crown comprises, on both an internal and external surface of the ring-shaped body, a number of cavities and grooves. The scope of “a number of” is unclear. The limitation is interpreted as reciting a plurality of cavities and grooves.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Barthold et al. (Barthold, U.S. 5,898,949). Barthold discloses the invention as claimed. Barthold teaches a protective helmet 10 comprising: a shell 12; a crown 14 comprising a ring-shaped body; and a cage 16 for a user's head, configured to be internally attached to said shell 12, wherein said crown 14 is interposed between said shell 12 and said cage 16 when said cage 16 is attached to said shell 12, wherein the shell 12 comprises a shell body comprising, on its internal surface, at least two attachment slots 46,48 for attaching the cage 16 to the shell 12.
For claim 2, Barthold teaches the protective helmet according to claim 1, further comprising
attachment elements 36,38 for attaching the cage 16 to the shell 12 by means of engagement with said at least two attachment slots 46,48.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Yarlagadda et al. (U.S. 12,016,417). Yarlagadda discloses the invention as claimed. Yarlagadda teaches a protective helmet 10 comprising a shell 100, a crown comprising a ring-shaped body 200 and a cage 300 for a user’s head, configured to be internally attached to the shell 100, wherein the crown is interposed between the shell 100 and the cage 300 when the cage 300 is attached to the shell 100.
For claim 3, Yarlagadda teaches the crown comprises, on both an internal surface and an external surface of the ring-shaped body, a number of cavities and grooves 221 as the ring-shaped body is disclosed as shown in Figure 4A. Note that each groove has a depth such that alternating grooves could be considered as cavities.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthold in view of Descrovi (WO 2021/160817). Barthold discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Barthold doesn’t teach the protective helmet according to claim 1, wherein said crown is made of sintered expanded polystyrene. Descrovi teaches a helmet 1 with cap 10 and chin guard 11 including an internal lining made of a resilient material, such as sintered expanded polystyrene adapted to absorb and dissipate as much as possible impact forces acting on the helmet 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barthold such that the crown is made of sintered expanded polystyrene as taught by Descrovi as a known material employed in helmets for impact absorption.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthold in view of Weber (WO 2021/127445). Barthold discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Barthold doesn’t teach the protective helmet according to claim 1, comprising internally, in an upper portion of the shell body, an internal protection element, and the helmet comprising an empty
space between a top of the cage and said internal protection element, said empty space
having a vertical dimension greater than 25 mm. Weber teaches a helmet 100 with an internal protection element 104-B in an upper portion of the shell body 102 as in Fig.1A to provide improved comfort and protection to the wearer’s head. Modifying Barthold’s helmet to include the internal protection element 104-B in an upper portion would result in an empty space between a top of the cage and the internal protection element, the empty space having a vertical dimension greater than 25 mm surrounding the protection element as the thickness of the protection element 104-B is greater than 25 mm (1 inch). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barthold’s helmet to provide the internal protection element internally, in an upper portion of the shell body and the helmet comprising an empty space between a top of the cage and the internal protection element, the empty space having a vertical dimension greater than 25 mm as Weber teaches it's known to provide a helmet with an internal protection element in an upper portion of the shell body internally for improved comfort and protection to the wearer’s head, with the internal protection element having a thickness greater than 25 mm to result in an empty space having a vertical dimension greater than 25 mm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, and 7 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. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and includes the following allowable subject matter: said crown comprises, on its upper edge, four protuberances, said protuberances being located, when the helmet is worn by a user, in the frontal region, the occipital region and the temporal regions of the user's head.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and includes the following allowable subject matter: the cage comprises a plurality of openings and at least two arms, each of said arms comprising an end portion with a hole and a vertical tooth configured to engage with a respective slot of said attachment slots when the cage is attached to the shell.
Claim 7 depends from claims 1 and 2 and recites the following allowable subject matter: each of said attachment elements comprises a ring portion, comprising a hole, and two elastic prongs which extend from said ring portion and each of which ends in a respective retaining tooth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732