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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/12/2026 includes 3 foreign references that were not considered as there was no translation provided as required by 37 CFR 1.98 (a)(3)(ii).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the back section of the helmet shell” should be revised to recite “a back section of the helmet shell”,
Claim 11: “a helmet interface section adapted to engage with the peak interface section” should be revised to recite “a helmet interface section engaging with the peak interface section” as the claim previously recites the peak connected to the helmet shell and therefore a recitation of further details of the peak and helmet as “adapted to engage” is inconsistent with the positively engaged helmet/peak structures. (See claim 1 where the peak is set forth as “connectable” to the helmet shell” and the helmet interface section is “adapted to engage” with the slot of the peak interface section as an example of consistent functional claim language.
Claim 12: “cooperate” should be revised to recite “are configured to cooperate”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-6 and 8 are 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 central slot has a central depth generally equal to the central thickness of the central segment. The specification doesn’t provide a standard for determining the scope of “generally equal to” and therefore it’s not clear that the inventor/joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Similarly for claim 8, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of “generally equal to” in the recitation of each lateral slot has a lateral depth generally equal to the lateral thickness of each lateral segment, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for determining the scope of “generally equal to” and therefore it’s not clear that the inventor/joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 3-6 and 8 are 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 central slot has a central depth generally equal to the central thickness of the central segment. The scope of “generally equal to” is indefinite as “generally” modifies “equal to” and it’s not clear to what degree the central depth must be equal to the central thickness in the prior art in order to be considered as “generally equal to”. Similarly for claim 8, the scope of “each lateral slot has a lateral depth generally equal to the lateral thickness” is indefinite as it’s not clear to what degree the lateral depth must be equal to the lateral thickness in the prior art in order to be considered as “generally equal to”. The specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of these limitations. Dependent claims 4-6 are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (U.S. 3,927,421) in view of Mazzarolo (U.S. 11,540,586). Simon discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Simon teaches a helmet 10 comprising: a helmet shell comprising: an inner surface defining a cavity and an outer surface having a frontal opening 16 at a front section; and a peak interface section (not labelled but shown in Fig.1 as the section of the helmet shell just below 18 and interfacing with the peak when it attaches to the helmet shell) extending along the outer surface and across a top section 13 of the helmet shell, a peak 25 connectable to the helmet shell and positioned above the frontal opening 16, the peak 25 comprising: a central part (includes 46 and portions of the openings 35-37 on both sides of 46) adapted to extend across a top section of the helmet shell; a pair of wings (see annotated drawing) extending from respective sides of the central part towards respective lateral sections of the helmet shell; a helmet interface section 26 adapted to engage with the peak interface section, where the helmet interface section 26 and the outer surface of the helmet shell define a continuous outer surface to allow laminar airflow from the front section towards a back section of the helmet shell; and a forward section 52 extending from the helmet interface section and having a forward edge 51 at a distal end of the central part and of the pair of wings, the peak 25 having openings 35-37 defined therethrough between the helmet interface section and the forward section to enable air flowing under the peak to flow through the openings 35-37, along the continuous outer surface and towards the back section of the helmet shell (see arrows 54 and 55 indicating airflow direction). However, Simon doesn’t teach the peak interface section defining a slot recessed into the outer surface for engagement with the helmet interface section of the peak. Mazzarolo teaches a helmet 10 with a peak interface section of the helmet defining a slot 28 recessed into the outer surface for engagement with the helmet interface section as in Figure 2. The slot 28 includes fastener 24 for receipt of the peak fastener 22 in cooperation with the recessed area 36 of the shell (Fig.2) resulting in a flush and continuous fit between the peak and the helmet shell. Mazzarolo further teaches “..if the outer shell is provided with a recessed area shaped according to a perimetric portion of the visor, the latter, can be advantageously mounted flush with the outer shell.” Column 2, lines 8-10 and 25-27 disclose that the flush relationship between the shell and the visor can decrease rotational force of the helmet during a collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Simon’s peak interface section to define a slot recessed into the outer surface of the helmet as taught by Mazzarolo, to result in a continuous, flush fit between the peak and helmet shell preventing any air leakage and decreasing rotational force of the helmet under impact to better protect the helmet wearer.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, Simon’s modified helmet teaches the helmet interface section comprises a central segment extending along the central part, and Mazzarolo teaches the slot comprises a central slot 24 extending transversely across the top section (slot has a transverse extent), the central slot 24 being shaped and sized to receive the central segment therein, as Mazzarolo’s peak 14 includes the central segment “a third receiving seat 24 can be positioned along a midline of the outer shell 12 and a third protrusion 22 can be positioned at a corresponding location on the inner surface of the visor 14”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Simon’s slot to comprise a central slot extending transversely across the top section, the central slot shaped and sized to receive the central segment therein, as Mazzarolo teaches this structural arrangement results in the flush and continuous fit between the peak and helmet outer shell.
For claim 3 as best understood, Simon’s modified helmet teaches the central segment having a central thickness and the central slot 24 as taught by Mazzarolo has a central depth. Mazzarolo doesn’t explicitly recite the central depth as generally equal to the central thickness such that a top surface of the central segment is adapted to be in register with the outer surface of the helmet shell upon engagement of the central segment with the central slot to define a continuous central surface. However, Mazzarolo teaches the outer shell including the central slot 24 is shaped to receive the protrusion 22 and is formed within a recessed area 36 of the shell such that the peak can be advantageously mounted flush with the outer shell. Based on these teachings, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that forming the central depth of the central segment as generally equal to the central thickness of the central segment is a necessary and obvious modification to achieve the flush fit of the central portion of the peak with the central slot of the helmet shell.
For claim 4, Simon’s modified helmet teaches openings 35-37 comprising one or more central openings defined through the central part, and the one or more central openings are partly defined by the central segment such that air is adapted to flow through the one or more central openings along the continuous central surface (openings 35-37 includes portions defined through the central part).
For claim 5, the modified Simon teaches the helmet of claim 4, wherein the central part comprises peak supports 47,48 extending between the helmet interface section and the forward section, the one or more central openings being further defined between pairs of peak supports (supports 47,48 are formed in pairs, with one of each pair formed on one side of rib 46 and the second of each pair formed on the opposite side of rib 46).
For claim 7, the modified Simon teaches the helmet interface section includes lateral segments at respective distal ends of the wings (portions extending laterally and rearwardly at Simon’s visor ends). Mazzarolo teaches lateral slots 28 extending along lateral sections of the helmet, the lateral slots shaped and sized to receive the lateral segments therein, as Mazzarolo teaches the slot comprising lateral slots 28 extending along lateral sections of the helmet 10 as in Figure 2. Note that the second lateral slot is not visible but is configured to receive element 22 of the fastening mechanism of the peak 14. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Simon to provide the lateral slots sized and shaped to receive the lateral segments therein, both Simon and Mazzarolo teach a central and two lateral fastening mechanisms and the proposed modification incorporates the slots recessed into the helmet shell for a flush and continuous fit.
For claim 8 as best understood, the modified Simon teaches each lateral segment has a lateral thickness, inherent in each lateral segment, and wherein each lateral slot 28 as modified by Mazzarolo has a lateral depth. Mazzarolo doesn’t explicitly teach the lateral depth is generally equal to the lateral thickness such that a top surface of each lateral segment is adapted to be in register with the outer surface of the helmet shell upon engagement of the lateral segments with the lateral slots. However, Mazzarolo teaches the outer shell including the peak interface section is provided with a recessed area 36 shaped according to a perimetric portion of the peak such that the peak can be advantageously mounted flush with the outer shell and Figure 10 shows portions of the lateral slot 28 sized for receipt of fastener 24. Based on these teachings, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that providing the lateral depth of the lateral slots as generally equal to the lateral thickness of each lateral segment is a necessary and obvious modification necessary to achieve the flush fit of the lateral segments with the lateral slots of the helmet shell.
For claim 20, the modified Simon teaches the helmet of claim 1, wherein the helmet shell comprises a pair of coupling elements 19, and wherein the peak 25 comprises a pair of coupling points 20 removably connectable to respective coupling elements in order to secure the peak in a predetermined position relative to the helmet shell, col.2 lines 47-52- (“The helmet includes snap fastener means 19 which may be part of a separable snap fastener 19. It receives and engages fastener means 20 (the other part of the snap fastener) on visor 25, whereby the visor may be attached to the helmet. It readily can break away on impact by separation of the fastener.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 depends from claims 1-4 and recites the one or more central openings comprise a primary opening defined generally in a middle of the central part and a pair of secondary openings defined on respective sides of the primary opening, each one of the primary opening and the secondary openings define respective continuous central surfaces with corresponding portions of the outer surface of the helmet shell and the prior art, including Simon and Gordon, doesn’t teach or render obvious these features.
Claims 9 and 10 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 9 depends from claim 1 and recites each wing is adapted to extend above the outer surface of the helmet shell along a length thereof to define a lateral passage between the wing and the helmet shell enabling airflow therethrough and the prior art, including Simon and Gordon, doesn’t teach or render obvious these features. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and therefore also recites allowable subject matter.
Claims 11-19 are allowed (see claim objections above). Claim 11 defines over the prior art as it recites a helmet comprising: a helmet shell comprising: an inner surface defining a cavity and an outer surface; ridges protruding from the outer surface and laterally spaced from one another to define shell channels therebetween, each ridge generally extending along a length of the helmet shell such that the shell channels extend from a front section of the helmet shell towards a back section of the helmet shell; and a peak interface section extending along the outer surface and transversely across the ridges and the shell channels; a peak connected to the helmet shell and comprising: a helmet interface section adapted to engage with the peak interface section; and a forward section extending from the helmet interface section and having a forward edge at a distal end of the central part and of the pair of wings, the peak having openings defined therethrough between the helmet interface section and the forward section to enable air flowing under the peak to flow through the openings and towards the back section of the helmet shell, wherein each one of the ridges and the shell channels is aligned with respective openings of the peak. Simon and Mazzarolo as well as other relevant prior art don’t teach the combination of the laterally spaced ridges protruding from the shell outer surface to define channels therebetween, with each ridge generally extending along a length of the helmet shell to extend from a front section towards a back section of the shell, a peak interface section extending along the outer surface of the shell and transversely across the ridges and channels and a peak connected to the helmet shell with the peak having openings defined therethrough between a helmet interface section and a forward section of the peak, the respective openings aligned with each of the ridges and shell channels.
Conclusion
References listed on the PTO-892 and not employed in the prior art rejections are considered relevant to the invention.
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
Prosecution Insights