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 .
There is no power of attorney on file for this application.
Response to Amendment
A response of 4/29/2026 is received. Claims 1 and 3-7 are amended, claims 11-16 are new, claims 8 and 9 are cancelled, and claims 1-7 and 10-16 are pending. A specification amendment was also submitted in the response and is entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS of 4/29/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document, each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed, and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referring to therein has not be considered. In particular, the 22 page NPL reference listed as “United States Patent Application 19/264,423..” does not include any annotation indicating the 19/264,423 application and a review of the pending ‘423 application and the IDS document shows differing text, e.g. the Abstract for the ‘423 application starts with “An attachment device for attaching an accessory to a shell of a protective helmet is described, the shell comprising…”. However, the Abstract for the document provided in the IDS starts with “A shell for a protective helmet is described comprising a shell body and a functional band…”.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 recites a crown comprising a ring-shaped body which defines a crown central cavity and said crown is interposed between said shell and said cage when said cage is attached to said shell and extends through and above the crown central cavity toward a top interior surface of the shell.
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 4 and 13 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 200 comprising a ring-shaped body, and a cage 300 for a user’s head, configured to be internally attached to the shell, wherein the crown 200 is interposed between the shell and the cage 300 when the cage is attached to the shell 100, and wherein the crown 200 comprises, on its upper edge 213, four protuberances (portions adjacent to and alternating with grooves 211) as in Figures 4A,4B,5A), said protuberances being located, when the helmet is worn by a user, in a frontal region, the occipital region and the temporal region of the user’s head. Note that the protuberances extending around the entire upper edge of the crown such that when the helmet is worn by a user, the protuberances are located in a frontal, occipital, and temporal region of the user’s head.
For claim 13, Yarlagadda teaches the crown 200 comprises, on both an internal surface and an external surface of the ring-shaped body, plural cavities and plural grooves 221 as the ring-shaped body is 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarlagadda in view of Kirshon (U.S.2021/0076769). Yarlagadda teaches a protective helmet 10 comprising a shell 100, a crown 200 comprising a ring-shaped body which defines a crown central cavity 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 and extends through and above the crown central cavity toward a top interior surface of the shell 100 (par.23 discloses “the inner ring 300 may be configured to fit at least partially within an internal portion of the impact cap 200”) and the shell 100 comprises a shell body. However, Yarlagadda doesn’t teach the shell body comprising, on its internal surface 131, at least two attachment slots for attaching the cage to the shell. Kirshon teaches a helmet shell 112 that is part of a helmet assembly including a ring-shaped helmet suspension or liner 114 and the shell 112 includes at least two attachment slots 122 on its internal surface for attaching the shell to the liner 114 via clip elements 120 for secure and releasable assembly of the helmet shell to the other components as in Fig.16 and par.114. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shell body to comprise, on its internal surface, at least two attachment slots for attaching the cage 300 to the shell 100, taught by Kirshon as a known structure for securely releasably retaining helmet components together.
For claim 3, Yarlagadda teaches the crown 200 comprises, on both an internal surface and an external surface of the ring-shaped body, plural cavities and plural grooves 221 as the ring-shaped body is shown in Figure 4A. Note that each groove has a depth such that alternating grooves could be considered as cavities.
For claim 10, Yarlagadda discloses the shell comprising a shell body but doesn’t teach the shell body comprising, on its internal surface, at least two attachment slots for attaching the cage to the shell. Kirshon teaches a helmet shell 112 that is part of a helmet assembly including a ring-shaped helmet suspension or liner 114 and the shell 112 includes at least two attachment slots 122 on its internal surface for attaching the shell to the liner 114 and/or liner 116 via clips 120 for secure and releasable assembly of the helmet shell to the other components as in Fig.16 and par.114. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yarlagadda to provide at least two attachment slots for attaching the cage to the shell, as Kirshon teaches it’s known in the art to form a shell body with at least two attachment slots on its internal surface for securing to a separate helmet accessory or structure.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarlagadda ‘417 in view of Descrovi ‘817. Yarlagadda discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Yarlagadda 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yarlagadda such that the crown is made of sintered expanded polystyrene as taught by Descrovi as a known material employed in helmets for impact absorption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 11, and 12 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 6, 15, and 16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been reviewed. Applicant submits that Barthold et al. doesn’t teach the crown comprising a ring-shaped body which defines a crown central cavity and that the crown is interposed between said shell and said cage when said cage is attached to said shell and extends through and above the crown central cavity toward a top interior surface of the shell as in amended claim 1. The Examiner agrees with this assessment of Barthold. Please see revised claim rejections set forth above.
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights