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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the neck portion covers at least a portion of a shoulder region of the user” in Claim 7 should read “the neck portion is configured to cover at least a portion of a shoulder region of the user” so as to avoid positively claiming the wearer
“the second opening is located beneath the occipital bone” in Claim 12 should read “the second opening is configured to be located beneath the occipital bone so as to avoid positively claiming the wearer
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowe et al. (US 2009/0178176).
Regarding Claim 1, Rowe et al. teaches a system configured to accommodate hair of a user, the system comprising: a balaclava (10) having a first end (see annotated Fig.) and a second end (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 1 shows the balaclava having a first and a second end), the balaclava configured, when the user is wearing the balaclava, to cover a head of the user, a neck of the user, a face of the user, and at least a first portion of the hair of the user (fig. 1 shows the balaclava (10) in use and being capable of covering a user’s head, neck, face, and a first portion of the user’s hair), wherein the balaclava includes a portion (see annotated Fig.) for covering a nose and a mouth of the user when the user is wearing the balaclava (Annotated fig. 1 shows the portion covering the user’s nose and mouth), and wherein the balaclava further includes: a first opening (26) for eyes of the user when the user is wearing the balaclava (fig. 1 shows the first opening (26) extending around the wearer’s eyes during use); and a second opening (30) dimensioned and positioned in a rear region of the balaclava (fig. 4 shows the second opening (30) dimensioned and positioned in a rear of the balaclava) and configured such that, when the user is wearing the balaclava, the second opening is located beneath an occipital bone, an occipital lobe, and a cerebellum of the user, and wherein the second opening is configured to accommodate a second portion of the hair (fig. 4 shows the second opening being positioned such that is capable of being beneath a wearer’s occipital bone, occipital lobes, and cerebellum, and further capable of accommodating a second portion of the hair. Examiner notes that the balaclava will fit differently sized heads in different manners and an intended relative position of the second opening to the wearer's head anatomy is functional and not patentably significant.), wherein the balaclava is configured to be worn under a helmet, and wherein the second opening is configured to be positioned below a bottom of a rear portion of the helmet when the user is wearing the balaclava and the helmet, such that the second portion of the hair, when passed through the second opening, is not disposed between the rear portion of the helmet and the head of the user (the balaclava is clearly capable of being worn under a helmet, and further as the second opening is positioned below the first opening, the second opening is clearly capable of being positioned below a bottom of a rear portion of the helmet, therein a wearer’s hair is capable of being not disposed between the rear portion of the helmet and the user’s head when passed through the second opening. Examiner notes that this is functional language and there are a variety of different helmet types, and an intended relative position of the second opening to the helmet is functional and not patentably significant), wherein the balaclava includes a neck portion (see annotated Fig.) configured, when the user is wearing the balaclava, to cover the entire neck of the user (annotated fig. 1 shows the balaclava covering the entire neck of the user. Examiner notes that the balaclava will fit differently sized users in different manners and an intended relative position of the neck portion to the wearer's anatomy is functional and not patentably significant.), the neck portion defining the first end of the balaclava (annotated fig. 1 shows the neck portion defining the first end of the balaclava), and wherein the first opening is positioned axially between the first end and the second end of the balaclava, wherein the second opening is positioned axially between the first opening and the first end of the balaclava (annotated fig. 4 shows the first opening (26) positioned axially between the first and second ends of the balaclava and the second opening (30) positioned axially between the first opening (26) and the first end).
Regarding Claim 2, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening (30) is configured, when the user is wearing the balaclava, to gather the second portion of the hair such that the gathered second portion of the hair passes through the second opening (fig. 4 shows the second opening (30) being capable of gathering the user’s hair and allowing the second portion of the user’s hair to pass through the second opening when the balaclava is being worn).
Regarding Claim 3, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening (30) includes at least one elastic member (paragraph [0023] teaches “the rear opening 30 may be provided with various elastic materials”).
Regarding Claim 4, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening is formed as a circle, an oval, a triangle, a diamond, a trapezoid, an octagon, or a slit (fig. 4 shows the second opening (30) being a slit).
Regarding Claim 6, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening is defined by an inner flap (see annotated Fig.) and an outer flap (32) that at least partially overlaps the inner flap (annotated fig. 4 shows the outer flap (32) at least partially overlapping the inner flap).
Regarding Claim 7, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the neck portion (see annotated Fig.) covers at least a portion of a shoulder region of the user (annotated fig. 1 shows the neck portion being capable of covering a portion of a user’s shoulder region. Examiner notes that the balaclava will fit differently sized users in different manners and an intended relative position of the neck portion to the wearer's anatomy is functional and not patentably significant.).
Regarding Claim 8, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the neck portion (see annotated Fig.) has a front section (see annotated Fig.) and a rear section (see annotated Fig.), and wherein the front section is longer than the rear section (Annotated fig. 3 shows the front section of the neck portion being longer than the rear section of the neck portion).
Regarding Claim 9, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 8, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the first end (see annotated Fig.) of the balaclava has a concave side edge (see annotated Fig.) extending from the front section to the rear section (annotated fig. 4 shows the first end having a concave side edge extending from the front to the rear section).
Regarding Claim 22, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening (30) is located in an upper rear region of the neck portion (annotated fig. 4 shows the second opening (30) in the upper rear region of the neck portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
726
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 2009/0178176) in view of Dreher (US 2003/0009813).
Regarding Claim 5, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening (30) consists of a single opening for a ponytail (fig. 4 shows the second opening (30) consisting of a single opening capable of allowing a ponytail to pass through).
Rowe does not teach wherein the second opening is circular.
Attention is drawn to Dreher which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Dreher teaches a head covering (10) configured to cover a hear of the user (fig. 2 shows the head covering (10) configured to cover a user’s head), the head covering including an opening (15) dimensioned and positioned in the rear of the head covering (fig. 2 shows the opening dimensioned and positioned in the rear of the head covering), wherein the opening is configured to accommodate a portion of the users hair (fig. 2 shows the opening (15) being configured to accommodate a portion of the user’s hair). Dreher further teaches wherein the opening consists of a single circular opening for a ponytail (figs. 1 and 2 show the opening being a single circular opening for a ponytail).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowe et al. to include the teachings of Dreher such that the second opening is circular as it is no more than an obvious design choice of change in shape that would have a reasonable expectation of success for receiving a user’s hair through, especially as Rowe et al. teaches “the shape and orientation of the rear opening 30 may vary greatly from one embodiment to another, depending upon the desired aesthetic and functional attributes of the clothing accessory 10” (paragraph [0023] of Rowe). Further in support of this conclusion of obvious, it is noted that In re Daily, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (see MPEP § 2144.04 IV).
Regarding Claim 10, Rowe et al. teaches a method comprising: wearing the balaclava of claim 1 on the user's head such that the second opening of the balaclava is positioned beneath the occipital bone, the occipital lobe, and the cerebellum of the user (fig. 1 shows the balaclava being worn on the head such that the second opening of the balaclava is positioned beneath the occipital bone, the occipital lobe, and the cerebellum of the user);
Rowe does not teach the method step of passing the second portion of the hair through the second opening.
Attention is drawn to Dreher which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Dreher teaches a method comprising: wearing the head covering (10) with an opening (15) on the user's head (fig. 2 shows the head covering (10) with an opening (15) on the user’s head); and passing the second portion of the hair through the second opening (fig. 2 shows the user’s hair being passed through the second opening).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowe et al. to include the teachings of Dreher such that the method includes the step of passing the second portion of the hair through the second opening so as to allow the wearer to avoid their hair getting trapped under the balaclava, making the wearer uncomfortable, and further as it would have been obvious to try, as a wearer with long hair has a finite number of identified, predictable places for which to place their hair, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in passing their hair through the second opening (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 2009/0178176) in view of Dreher (US 2003/0009813), and further in view of Stroud (US 2005/0283885).
Regarding Claim 11, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above.
Rowe et al. does not teach the method step of wearing the helmet over the balaclava such that the second opening of the balaclava is positioned below the bottom of the rear portion of the helmet.
Attention is drawn to Stroud which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Stroud teaches a method step of wearing a helmet (20) (fig. 1 shows the helmet being worn), wherein the helmet is clearly capable of being worn over a balaclava (Stroud does not teach away from the helmet being worn over any other additional layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowe et al. such that the method includes wearing the helmet over the balaclava so as to provide the wearer protection during snowboarding (paragraph [0026], “As shown in FIG. 1, environment 10 includes a snowboarder (user) 12 on a snowboard 14 wearing helmet 20 on a head 16 of user 12. Helmet 20 is secured to head 16 of user 12 through the use of straps 18. Although one example of helmet 20 is shown as a snowboard helmet in FIG. 1, embodiments of the present invention may comprise or be used in conjunction with any type of protective headgear,”). As Rowe et al. has been modified such that the method includes wearing a helmet over the balaclava, the second opening of the balaclava would clearly be positioned below the bottom of the rear portion of the helmet, as the second opening is on the neck portion of the balaclava and the helmet does not cover the wearer’s neck.
Regarding Claim 16, Rowe et al. teaches a method comprising: wearing a balaclava on a wearer's head (fig. 1 shows the balaclava being worn on the wearer’s head), the balaclava having a first end (see annotated Fig.) and second end (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 4 shows the balaclava having a first and a second end), wherein: the balaclava covers the head of the wearer, a neck of the wearer, a face of the wearer, and at least a first portion of hair of the wearer (fig. 1 shows the balaclava (10) in use and being capable of covering a user’s head, neck, face, and a first portion of the user’s hair), the balaclava includes a rear portion (see annotated Fig.) covering the entire neck of the wearer, the rear portion positioned adjacent the first end of the balaclava (annotated fig. 4 shows the rear portion covering capable of covering the wearer’s entire neck and being positioned adjacent the first end), the balaclava includes a front portion (see annotated Fig.) covering a nose and a mouth of the wearer (annotated fig. 4 shows the front portion configured to cover a wearer’s nose and mouth), and the balaclava further includes: a first opening (26) for eyes of the wearer, wherein the first opening is positioned axially between the first end and the second end of the balaclava (annotated fig. 4 shows the first opening configured to extend around the wearer’s eyes and being positioned axially between the first and second ends of the balaclava); and a second opening (30) located beneath an occipital bone, an occipital lobe, and a cerebellum of the wearer (fig. 4 shows the second opening being positioned such that is capable of being beneath a wearer’s occipital bone, occipital lobes, and cerebellum, and further capable of accommodating a second portion of the hair. Examiner notes that the balaclava will fit differently sized heads in different manners and an intended relative position of the second opening to the wearer's head anatomy is functional and not patentably significant.), wherein the second opening is positioned axially between the first opening and the first end of the balaclava (annotated fig. 4 shows the second opening (30) positioned axially between the first opening (26) and the first end);
Rowe et al. does not teach passing a second portion of the hair of the wearer through the second opening; and wearing a helmet over the balaclava, wherein the second opening is positioned below a bottom of a rear portion of the helmet.
Attention is drawn to Dreher which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Dreher teaches a method comprising: wearing the head covering (10) with an opening (15) on the user's head (fig. 2 shows the head covering (10) with an opening (15) on the user’s head); and passing the second portion of the hair through the second opening (fig. 2 shows the user’s hair being passed through the second opening).
Attention is drawn to Stroud which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Stroud teaches a method step of wearing a helmet (20) (fig. 1 shows the helmet being worn), wherein the helmet is clearly capable of being worn over a balaclava (Stroud does not teach away from the helmet being worn over any other additional layers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowe et al. to include the teachings of Dreher such that the method includes the step of passing the second portion of the hair through the second opening so as to allow the wearer to avoid their hair getting trapped under the balaclava, making the wearer uncomfortable, and further as it would have been obvious to try, as a wearer with long hair has a finite number of identified, predictable places for which to place their hair, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in passing their hair through the second opening (see MPEP 2143)., and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowe et al. such that the method includes wearing the helmet over the balaclava so as to provide the wearer protection during snowboarding (paragraph [0026], “As shown in FIG. 1, environment 10 includes a snowboarder (user) 12 on a snowboard 14 wearing helmet 20 on a head 16 of user 12. Helmet 20 is secured to head 16 of user 12 through the use of straps 18. Although one example of helmet 20 is shown as a snowboard helmet in FIG. 1, embodiments of the present invention may comprise or be used in conjunction with any type of protective headgear,”). As Rowe et al. has been modified such that the method includes passing the second portion of hair through the second opening and wearing a helmet over the balaclava, the second opening of the balaclava would clearly be positioned below the bottom of the rear portion of the helmet, as the second opening is on the neck portion of the balaclava and the helmet does not cover the wearer’s neck.
Regarding Claim 17, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 16, as discussed in the rejections above.
Rowe et al. does not teach wherein the helmet comprises a back-of-the- head strap, and wherein, while wearing the helmet over the balaclava, the second portion of hair is not disposed between the back-of-the-head strap and the head of the wearer.
Attention is drawn to Stroud which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Stroud teaches a method step of wearing a helmet (20) (fig. 1 shows the helmet being worn), wherein the helmet is clearly capable of being worn over a balaclava (Stroud does not teach away from the helmet being worn over any other additional layers). Stroud further teaches wherein the helmet comprises a back-of-the- head strap (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 2A shows the helmet comprising a back of the head strap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowe et al. to include the teachings of Stroud such that wherein the helmet comprises a back-of-the- head strap so as to ensure the helmet stays securely on the head of the wearer, especially in the case of an accident. While neither Rowe et al. or Stroud alone teach wherein while wearing the helmet over the balaclava, the second portion of hair is not disposed between the back-of-the-head strap and the head of the wearer, modified Rowe et al. would clearly teach this limitation, as the opening would obviously be positioned away from the back of the head strap and therein allow the head to be disposed away from and not between the back of the head strap and the wearer’s head.
Regarding Claim 18, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 16, as discussed in the rejections above.
Rowe et al. does not teach wherein, while wearing the helmet over the balaclava, the second portion of the hair is not covered by the helmet. However, Rowe et al. as modified such that the helmet is worn over the balaclava clearly teaches the second portion of hair being spaced from, and therein not covered by the helmet as the second opening is positioned on the neck portion of the balaclava and the helmet does not cover the neck portion of the wearer.
Regarding Claim 19, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 16, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening is defined by an inner flap (see annotated Fig.) and an outer flap (32) that at least partially overlaps the inner flap (annotated fig. 4 shows the outer flap (32) at least partially overlapping the inner flap), and wherein passing the second portion of the hair of the wearer through the second opening comprises passing the second portion of the hair of the wearer between the inner flap and the outer flap (as the method has been modified so as to include the method step of passing the second portion of the hair through the second opening, as Rowe et al. teaches the second opening having an inner and an outer flap this method step of passing the second portion of the hair of the wearer between the inner flap and the outer flap would clearly occur).
Regarding Claim 20, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 16, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the balaclava is separate from the helmet (fig. 1 shows the balaclava being standalone, and therein clearly separate from the helmet of modified Rowe et al.).
PNG
media_image3.png
542
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12, 14, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 2009/0178176) in view of Stroud (US 2005/0283885).
Regarding Claim 12, Rowe et al. teaches a system configured to accommodate hair of a user, the system comprising: a balaclava (10) having a first end (see annotated Fig.) and a second end (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 1 shows the balaclava having a first and a second end), the balaclava configured, when the user is wearing the balaclava, to cover a head of the user, a neck of the user, a face of the user, and at least a first portion of the hair of the user (fig. 1 shows the balaclava (10) in use and being capable of covering a user’s head, neck, face, and a first portion of the user’s hair), wherein the balaclava includes a portion (see annotated Fig.) configured to cover a nose and a mouth of the user when the user is wearing the balaclava (Annotated fig. 1 shows the portion covering the user’s nose and mouth), and wherein the balaclava further includes: a neck portion (see annotated Fig.) configured, when the user is wearing the balaclava, to cover the entire neck of the user (annotated fig. 1 shows the balaclava covering the entire neck of the user. Examiner notes that the balaclava will fit differently sized users in different manners and an intended relative position of the neck portion to the wearer's anatomy is functional and not patentably significant.), the neck portion defining the first end of the balaclava (annotated fig. 1 shows the neck portion defining the first end of the balaclava); a first opening (26) for eyes of the user when the user is wearing the balaclava (fig. 1 shows the first opening (26) extending around the wearer’s eyes during use); and a second opening (30) dimensioned and positioned in an upper rear region of the neck portion (fig. 4 shows the second opening (30) dimensioned and positioned in an upper rear region of the neck portion) and configured such that, when the user is wearing the balaclava and the helmet, the second opening is located beneath the occipital bone, the occipital lobe, and the cerebellum of the user, and below a bottom of the rear portion of the helmet; and wherein the second opening is configured to accommodate a second portion of the hair fig. 4 shows the second opening being positioned such that is capable of being beneath a wearer’s occipital bone, occipital lobes, and cerebellum, and further capable of accommodating a second portion of the hair. Examiner notes that the balaclava will fit differently sized heads in different manners and an intended relative position of the second opening to the wearer's head anatomy is functional and not patentably significant.) and wherein the first opening is positioned axially between the first end and the second end of the balaclava, wherein the second opening is positioned axially between the first opening and the first end of the balaclava (annotated fig. 4 shows the first opening (26) positioned axially between the first and second ends of the balaclava and the second opening (30) positioned axially between the first opening (26) and the first end).
Rowe et al. does not teach a helmet having a rear portion that is configured to cover an occipital bone, an occipital lobe, and a cerebellum of the user when the user is wearing the helmet; and wherein when the user is wearing the balaclava and the helmet and the second portion of hair passes through the second opening, the second portion of the hair extends below the bottom of the rear portion of the helmet and is not disposed between the rear portion of the helmet and the head of the user.
Attention is drawn to Stroud, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Stroud teaches a helmet (20) having a rear portion (see annotated Fig.) that is configured to cover an occipital bone, an occipital lobe, and a cerebellum of the user when the user is wearing the helmet (annotated fig. 2A shows the rear portion of the helmet being capable of covering an occipital bone, an occipital lobe, and a cerebellum of the user. Examiner notes that the helmet will fit differently sized heads in different manners and an intended relative position of the helmet to the wearer's head anatomy is functional and not patentably significant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowe et al. to include the teachings of Stroud such that the system includes a helmet having a rear portion that is configured to cover an occipital bone, an occipital lobe, and a cerebellum of the user when the user is wearing the helmet so as to provide the wearer additional protection for activities that require it (paragraph [0026], “As shown in FIG. 1, environment 10 includes a snowboarder (user) 12 on a snowboard 14 wearing helmet 20 on a head 16 of user 12. Helmet 20 is secured to head 16 of user 12 through the use of straps 18. Although one example of helmet 20 is shown as a snowboard helmet in FIG. 1, embodiments of the present invention may comprise or be used in conjunction with any type of protective headgear,”). Neither Rowe et al. or Stroud alone teach explicitly wherein when the user is wearing the balaclava and the helmet and the second portion of hair passes through the second opening, the second portion of the hair extends below the bottom of the rear portion of the helmet and is not disposed between the rear portion of the helmet and the head of the user. However modified Rowe et al. would clearly teach this limitation, as the second opening of Rowe et al. is positioned on the neck portion and the helmet does not cover the neck of a user.
Regarding Claim 14, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 12, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening (30) includes at least one elastic member (paragraph [0023] teaches “the rear opening 30 may be provided with various elastic materials”).
Regarding Claim 15, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 12, as discussed in the rejections above.
Rowe et al. does not teach wherein the helmet is a snow sport helmet.
Attention is drawn to Stroud, which teaches an analogous article of apparel. Stroud teaches a helmet (20) having a rear portion (see annotated Fig.) that is configured to cover an occipital bone, an occipital lobe, and a cerebellum of the user when the user is wearing the helmet (annotated fig. 2A shows the rear portion of the helmet being capable of covering an occipital bone, an occipital lobe, and a cerebellum of the user. Examiner notes that the helmet will fit differently sized heads in different manners and an intended relative position of the helmet to the wearer's head anatomy is functional and not patentably significant). Stroud further teaches wherein the helmet is a snow sport helmet (paragraph [0026] teaches “As shown in FIG. 1, environment 10 includes a snowboarder (user) 12 on a snowboard 14 wearing helmet 20 on a head 16 of user 12,” wherein snowboarding is a snowsport).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rowe et al. to include the teachings of Stroud such that the helmet is a snow sport helmet so as to allow the wearer to be sufficiently protected while snowboarding (paragraph [0026], “As shown in FIG. 1, environment 10 includes a snowboarder (user) 12 on a snowboard 14 wearing helmet 20 on a head 16 of user 12. Helmet 20 is secured to head 16 of user 12 through the use of straps 18. Although one example of helmet 20 is shown as a snowboard helmet in FIG. 1, embodiments of the present invention may comprise or be used in conjunction with any type of protective headgear,”)
Regarding Claim 21, Rowe et al. teaches all of the limitations of the system of Claim 12, as discussed in the rejections above. Rowe et al. further teaches wherein the second opening is defined by an inner flap (see annotated Fig.) and an outer flap (32) that at least partially overlaps the inner flap (annotated fig. 4 shows the outer flap (32) at least partially overlapping the inner flap).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 at (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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights