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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2026 and 07/13/2026 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (figs. 9-10) in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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: “a tensioning element” in claim 12.
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 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 2 and 17 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.
Claim 2 recites “…a torsional rigidity against twisting about their longitudinal axis of more than 100kN/mm2”. It is unclear a unit for a torsional rigidity is “kN/mm2” or “kN*mm2”. For the purpose of applying art, a unit for a torsional rigidity is interpreted as “kN*mm2”.
Claim 17 recites “the planiform head contact element” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall (US 2014/0109301).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a helmet (fig. 2) comprising:
a helmet shell (fig. 2, shell 20); and
a strap system (fig. 2),
wherein the strap system comprises a chin strap with a chin rest element (annotated fig. 2 below),
a left end of the chin strap is connected to a front left tensioning strap and to a rear left tensioning strap and a right end of the chin strap is connected to a front right tensioning strap and to a rear right tensioning strap (annotated fig. 2 below),
the front left tensioning strap and the front right tensioning strap are in each case coupled to a front half of helmet shell (fig. 2, through fasteners 24),
the rear left tensioning strap and the rear right tensioning strap are in each case coupled to a rear head contact body (fig. 2, support portion 150), and
the rear head contact body is coupled to the helmet shell above the rear head contact body (fig. 2) on a left hand side of the helmet by a strip-shaped, stiffened left rear head brace (fig. 12, stabilizing member 170) and on a right-hand side of the helmet by a strip-shaped, stiffened right rear head brace (fig. 12, stabilizing member 170)(para. [0047]).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hall teaches the rear head contact body is connected to a rear half of the helmet shell exclusively by the rear head braces (para. [0047], alternatively, in some embodiments, rather than a downward stabilizing member 180 being attached directly to the helmet, an upper end of an upward stabilizing member 170 may be attached directly to the helmet).
Regarding claim 4, Hall teaches the stiffened rear head braces each extend from the rear head contact body along an inside of the helmet upwards towards a center of the helmet shell (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 5, Hall teaches the left rear head brace is secured to the helmet shell exclusively at a rear left securing point and the right rear head brace is secured to the helmet shell exclusively at a rear right securing point, and the rear left securing point and the rear right securing point are in each case located on the inside of the helmet on the rear half of the helmet shell (fig. 2, para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Hall teaches the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace are configured as suspensions for the rear head contact body (para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Hall teaches a length of the left rear head brace and right rear head brace is in each case greater than their width and their width is greater than their thickness (para. [0052]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Hall teaches the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace are at least five times more flexurally rigid against bending about their longitudinal axis than against bending about their transverse axis (the stabilizing members are of stiff material (para. [0076]), and resist various forces (e.g., tension, compression, torsion) (para. [0026]), while the stabilizing members have length /width ratio greater than 10 (para. [0052]-[0054]), therefore, the stabilizing members are at least five times more flexurally rigid against bending about their longitudinal axis than against bending about their transverse axis).
Regarding claim 9, Hall teaches the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace are at least ten times more flexurally rigid against bending about their longitudinal axis than against bending about their transverse axis (the stabilizing members are of stiff material (para. [0076]), and resist various forces (e.g., tension, compression, torsion) (para. [0026]), while the stabilizing members have length /width ratio greater than 10 (para. [0052]-[0054]), therefore, the stabilizing members are at least ten times more flexurally rigid against bending about their longitudinal axis than against bending about their transverse axis).
Regarding claim 10, Hall teaches one or more of the rear head contact body, the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace has a thickness of from 0.5 mm to 10 mm (para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, Hall teaches one or more of the rear head contact body, the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace has a thickness of from 1mm to 4mm (para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Hall teaches the rear head contact body is coupled via a left holding strap (fig. 12, band 120) and a right holding strap (fig. 12, band 120) to the front half of the helmet shell (fig. 3, bands 120 is coupled to the helmet shell by fasteners 24), and a length of one or more of the left holding strap and right holding strap can be varied by a tensioning element (fig. 12, para. [0074], adjustment device 160).
Regarding claim 14, Hall teaches one or more of the front left tensioning strap, the front right tensioning strap, the rear left tensioning strap and the rear right tensioning strap has a free end configured as a pull strap (fig. 2, para. [0034], free ends of straps are attached to adjustment devices 34 for tightening, loosening and locking portions of the straps).
Regarding claim 15, Hall teaches the rear left tensioning strap and the rear right tensioning strap are guided in each case through deflection elements, and the deflection elements are secured to the rear head contact body by fastening straps (annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
433
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Hall teaches the rear head contact body stretches a planiform head contact element (fig. 2, para. [0037], lining 110), and the head contact element is secured, by a rear side to the rear head contact body (fig. 2) and by a front side to the front half of the helmet shell (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Hall teaches the planiform head contact element comprises one or more of an inner cloth or inner net (para. [0037], lining 110 is mesh).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2014/0109301), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnston (US 2014/0090155).
Regarding claim 2, Hall does not teach the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace each have a torsional rigidity against twisting about their longitudinal axis of more than 100kN/mm2.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Johnston teaches a shear modulus of approximately 250 to 350 psi (or from 1722 N/mm2 to 2411 N/mm2) (para. [0060], the fabric 140 has a shear modulus of approximately 250 to 350 psi).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace with a shear modulus of 250 to 350 psi of the fabric of Johnston for the benefit of providing rigidity to the straps and absorbing both linear impact and shear forces (Johnston, para. [0060]).
As the thickness of the straps of Hall is much smaller compared to its width (Hall, para. [0052], [0053]) and the shear modulus of the straps is at least 2000N/mm2 (in combination with material of Johnston), the modified structure Hall-Johnston also teaches the straps each have a torsional rigidity against twisting about their longitudinal axis of more than 100kN/mm2 as of the invention (see specification of the invention, page 3, first para. and second para.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 2014/0109301), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsu (US 2018/0095497).
Regarding claim 13, Hall does not clearly teach one or more of the rear head contact body, the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace comprise a fiber-reinforced plastic.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hsu teaches the first and second arms comprise a fiber-reinforced plastic (fig. 2A, para. [0023]; fig. 5A, para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine one or more of the rear head contact body, the left rear head brace and the right rear head brace with a fiber-reinforced plastic as taught by Hsu so that the components does not appreciably stretch (yield) when exposed to forces that may be safely experienced while on the user’s head (Hsu, para. [0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights