Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered.
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on 5/4/2026, claims 30-35 have been added and claims 3-5, 10-11, 14-15, 18, and 24 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 12-13, 16-17, 19-23, and 25-35 are now pending. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 12-13, 16-17, 19-23, 25-35 have been considered and rejected as seen below.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16-29 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to independent claims 1 and 13.
Claims 13, 16-17, 19, 25-26, 28-29, and 33-35 have been rejected 35 USC 101 as results of amendments to independent claim 13.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, see p. 10 - p. 12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Johnston’s teachings of digitally testing digital model of the energy attenuation member fall far short of being construed as a “testing protocol” as required by amended claim 1, see p. 12 because tests performed as taught by Johnston too simplistic, see p. 12 ¶ 1 & 3-4. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation as recited “digitally testing the digital model of the energy attenuation member using the energy attenuation testing protocol” does not specify how many specific tests have to be done and how each test should be done. Hence, as long as a prior art teaches performing simulation(s) for testing energy attenuation according a testing protocol, the prior art teaches the limitation under BRI. As a result, Johnston teaches “digitally testing the digital model of the energy attenuation member using the energy attenuation testing protocol.”
The Applicant furthermore argues that Johnston does not teach “generating an electronic file … that failed to meet the predetermined value,” see p. 12 ¶ 2. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Johnston teaches designing and simulating a helmet design with padding material to improve performance over existing an existing helmet. Simulations of different materials for a helmet were performed and compared their corresponding energy attenuation performances compared to the existing helmet mean the existing helmet’s energy attenuation performance value(s) are predetermined value(s), see Johnston p. 11 right col. ¶ 1, p. 12 left col. ¶ 1., and Fig. 7. Moreover, Johnston teaches designing and simulating FEA simulations on several materials to select one material to achieve the improvement goal, see Johnston p. 12right col. ¶ 3. These teachings indicate assessing whether said first digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member and generating an electronic file containing a digital model of a modified an energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing of the digital model of the energy attenuation member that failed to meet the predetermined value.
The Applicant also argues that Johnston and Pietrzak are not combinable because the technologies are incompatible and physically impractical of additive manufacturing, see p. 14 – p. 16 ¶ 2. The Applicant argues that it is highly impractical to manufacture internal components of protective sports helmet with high-strength, highly abrasive fibers such as the continuous glass, aramid, and fibers using standard 3D additive printing systems described in Pietrzak. These arguments are moot because the claim as recites does not claim any of these materials for discussion.
Claims 1 and 13, hence, remain rejected.
The Applicant also argues regarding claims 22 and 29 that Johnston and Pietrzak do not teach “”, see p. 16. The Applicant argues that claim 29 requires “partitioning the second digital model of the energy attenuation assembly into different segments based on a set of results from said digital test of the first digital model of the energy attenuation member.”
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 16, filed 5/4/2029, with respect to the rejection of claim 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 29 has been withdrawn. The Applicant uses the same arguments on claim 22. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 22 does not recite “based on a set of results from said digital test of the first digital model of the energy attenuation member.” Hence, claims 22 remains rejected.
The Applicant also argues regarding claims 12 and 19, see p. 17-19, that Pietrzak does not teach “selecting a digital model of an energy attenuation member … against the reference surface,” see claim 12, or “selecting a first digital model … using the three-dimensional digital model of the player’s head,” see claim 19, because CNC machine is involved in forming the inner surface of the custom-fitted helmet. Hence, the combination of Johnston and Prietrzak is improper. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prietrzak in ¶ 0011 teaches scanning a player’s head to generate 3D mode, see ¶ 0028-0029 and selecting a graphical 3D helmet base unit including padding based on the player’s 3D model, see ¶ 0011. Then the graphical 3D headform is positioned within the graphical 3D helmet to model the padding for CNC machine to make the padding. Hence, the 3D padding is modeled by positioning the graphical 3D headform within the graphical 3D helmet. This teaching is interpreted under BRI reading onto “selecting a digital model of an energy attenuation member … against the reference surface,” in claim 12, and “selecting a first digital model … using the three-dimensional digital model of the player’s head,” in claim 19.
Claims 12 and 19 remain rejected.
Other claims are argued allowable for depending on independent claims 1 and 13, see pp. 19-20. Since independent claims 1 and 13 remain rejected, other claims remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13, 16-17, 19, 25-26, 28-29, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 13 is a method claim and recites:
A multi-step method of designing and forming an energy attenuation member of a protective sports helmet to be worn by a player engaged in playing a contact sport, comprising:
obtaining a first digital model of an energy attenuation member; (insignificant extra-solution activity, gathering data, MPEP 2106.05(g))
obtaining an energy attenuation testing protocol that is based upon data collected from a plurality of prior impacts to protective sports helmets; (insignificant extra-solution activity, gathering data, MPEP 2106.05(g))
digitally testing the first digital model of the energy attenuation member using the energy attenuation testing protocol to evaluate whether said first digital model of the energy attenuation member exceeds a predetermined value associated with said energy attenuation member; (math concepts; digital testing as mentioned in the specification ¶ 00132 is Finite Element, FE, testing/analysis; FE testing/analysis is numerically solving differential equations arising in engineering and mathematical modeling, corresponding to math concepts)
generating an electronic file containing a second digital model of the energy attenuation member based on results of said digital testing of the first digital model of the energy attenuation member failing to exceed the predetermined value; and (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
transferring the electronic file containing the second digital model of the energy attenuation member to an additive manufacturing system. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data transmission MPEP 2106.05(d))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: limitations are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above. The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 16 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, wherein the energy attenuation testing protocol is modified based on data collected from the player that is to wear the protective sports helmet. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 17 is a method claim depending on claim 16 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 16, wherein the data collected from the player includes the player's primary playing position in the contact sport or the player's playing level in the contact sport. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(d))
Step 2A, prong 1: no abstract idea limitation is recited.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements. Limitations are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above.
Claims 19 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, wherein obtaining he first digital model of the energy attenuation member includes:
obtaining head data from a player's head using a scanning device; (insignificant extra-solution activity, gathering data, MPEP 2106.05(g))
processing the head data to create a three-dimensional digital model of the player's head; and (mental processes done by pen and paper)
selecting a first digital model of an energy attenuation member using the three-dimensional digital model of the player's head. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into an application.
Step 2B: limitations are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above. The claim recites an additional element of a scanning device at generic level, which does not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claims 25 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, wherein the data collected from a plurality of prior impacts to protective sports helmets worn by a plurality of players is clustered based upon a primary position that each player of the plurality of players play while engaged in the contact sport. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into an application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 26 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, wherein the data collected from a plurality of prior impacts to protective sports helmets worn by a plurality of players is clustered based playing level of each player of the plurality of players. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into an application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 28 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, further comprising the step of:
forming at least one physical energy attenuation member based on the second digital model; and,
wherein the physical energy attenuation member includes a plurality of segments, and wherein said plurality of segments are determined based on testing of the protective sports helmet. (limitation “forming …” and “wherein …” together are insignificant extra-solution activity, post solution activity by merely reciting a limitation to apply an exception, MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2A, prong 1: no abstract idea limitation is recited.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: limitations are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above. The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 29 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, further comprising partitioning the second digital model of the energy attenuation assembly into different segments based on a set of results from said digital test of the first digital model of the energy attenuation member, and wherein the different segments have differing mechanical properties. (mental processes)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 33 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, wherein the predetermined value is based on data collected from the player that is to wear the protective sports helmet. (mental process)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 34 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, wherein the predetermined value is impact energy absorption of the energy attenuation member in the digital model. (mental process)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claims 35 is a method claim depending on claim 13 and recites:
The multi-step method of claim 13, wherein the predetermined value is based on a physical property of the digital model of the energy attenuation member. (mental process)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 12-13, 19-20, 22, 27-28, 30-32, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Johnston et al. (Simulation, Fabrication and Impact Testing of A Novel Football Helmet Padding System That Decreases Rotational Acceleration, Sport Eng, 2015) in view of Pietrzak et al. (US 2021/0055711).
As per claim 1, Johnston teaches a multi-step method of designing and forming an energy attenuation member for installation within a protective sports helmet to be worn by a player engaged in playing a contact sport, comprising:
generating an electronic file containing a digital model of the energy attenuation member (p. 13 left col. ¶ 3; Johnston teaches developing two FE helmet models; the Schutt ION4D FE helmet model corresponds to an electronic file containing a digital model of the energy attenuation member);
obtaining an energy attenuation testing protocol (p. 15 left col. last paragraph – right col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches using a STAR protocol for testing; this teaching means an energy attenuation testing protocol is obtained);
digitally testing the digital model of the energy attenuation member using the energy attenuation testing protocol to assess whether said first digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member (p. 16 left col. ¶ 2 – p. 17 right col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches performing simulation of tests on the FE helmet model; this simulation corresponds to digitally testing the digital model of the energy attenuation member; p. 11 right col. ¶ 1, p. 12 left col. ¶ 1., and Fig. 7, Johnston teaches designing and simulating FEA simulations on several materials to select one material to achieve the improvement goal, see Johnston p. 12 right col. ¶ 3; these teachings indicate assessing whether a digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member, wherein the predetermined values are values of the existing helmet’s performance values; and generating an electronic file containing a digital model of a modified an energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing of the digital model of the energy attenuation member that failed to meet the predetermined value);
generating an electronic file containing a digital model of a modified an energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing of the digital model of the energy attenuation member that failed to meet the predetermined value (p. 11 right col. ¶ 1, p. 12 left col. ¶ 1., and Fig. 7, Johnston teaches designing and simulating FEA simulations on several materials to select one material to achieve the improvement goal, see Johnston p. 12 right col. ¶ 3; these teachings indicate assessing whether a digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member, and generating an electronic file containing a digital model of a modified an energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing of the digital model of the energy attenuation member that failed to meet the predetermined value).
Johnston does not teach:
transferring the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member to an additive manufacturing system; and
forming, by the additive manufacturing system, a physical energy attenuation member from based on the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member.
However, Pietrzak teaches:
transferring the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member to an additive manufacturing system (¶ 0077, claim 2; Piertrzak teaches computerized model of energy attenuation layer can be produced by a 3D additive printer; this teaching indicates that the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member must be transferred to the 3D additive printer corresponding to an additive manufacturing system); and
forming, by the additive manufacturing system, a physical energy attenuation member from based on the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member (claim 2; Piertrzak teaches computerized model of energy attenuation layer can be produced by a 3D additive printer).
Johnston and Pietrzak are analogous art because designing and forming an energy attenuation member for installation within a protective helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston and Pietrzak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Pietrzak’s teachings would have helped produce a custom-fitted helmet including customized protective layers (Pietrzak; ¶ 0077).
As per claim 6, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1, Johnston further teaches wherein the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member includes at least a first segment with a first set of mechanical properties and a second segment with a second set of mechanical properties, and wherein the first set of mechanical properties are different than the second set of mechanical properties (p. 13 right col. ¶ 3, p. 14 Fig. 2; Johnston teaches a FE helmet model including pads with a foam segment and a 3D fabric segment corresponding to a first and second segment, respectively; these materials as described inherently have 2 corresponding sets of mechanical properties that are different from each other).
As per claim 7, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 6, Johnston further teaches wherein the first segment is a fitting region that is positioned adjacent to the player’s head and the second segment is an energy management region that is positioned adjacent to the fitting region (p. 13 right col. ¶ 3; these first and second segments as described read onto this claim).
As per claim 12, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1,
Pietrzak further teaches:
wherein the step of generating a digital model of the energy attenuation member includes:
obtaining head data from a player's head using a scanning device (¶ 0029);
processing the head data to create a three-dimensional digital model of the player's head (¶ 0011);
comparing the three-dimensional digital model of the player's head against a reference surface (¶ 0011); and
selecting a digital model of an energy attenuation member based on the comparison of the three-dimensional digital model of the player's head against the reference surface (¶ 0011).
As per claim 13, Johnston teaches a multi-step method of designing and forming an energy attenuation member of a protective sports helmet to be worn by a player engaged in playing a contact sport, comprising:
obtaining a first digital model of an energy attenuation member (p. 13 left col. ¶ 3; Johnston teaches developing two FE helmet models; the Schutt ION4D FE helmet model corresponds to a first digital model of an energy attenuation member);
obtaining an energy attenuation testing protocol that is based upon data collected from a plurality of prior impacts to protective sports helmets (p. 15 left col. last paragraph – right col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches using a STAR protocol for testing; this teaching means an energy attenuation testing protocol is obtained);
digitally testing the first digital model of the energy attenuation member using the energy attenuation testing protocol to evaluate whether said first digital model of the energy attenuation member exceeds a predetermined value associated with said energy attenuation member (p. 16 left col. ¶ 2 – p. 17 right col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches performing simulation of tests on the FE helmet model; this simulation corresponds to digitally testing the digital model of the energy attenuation member; p. 11 right col. ¶ 1, p. 12 left col. ¶ 1., and Fig. 7, Johnston teaches designing and simulating FEA simulations on several materials to select one material to achieve the improvement goal, see Johnston p. 12 right col. ¶ 3; these teachings indicate assessing whether a digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member, wherein the predetermined values are values of the existing helmet’s performance values; and generating an electronic file containing a digital model of a modified an energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing of the digital model of the energy attenuation member that failed to meet the predetermined value);
generating an electronic file containing a second digital model of the energy attenuation member based on results of said digital testing of the partitioned first digital model of the energy attenuation member failing to exceed the predetermined value (p. 11 right col. ¶ 1, p. 12 left col. ¶ 1., and Fig. 7, Johnston teaches designing and simulating FEA simulations on several materials to select one material to achieve the improvement goal, see Johnston p. 12 right col. ¶ 3; these teachings indicate assessing whether a digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member, and generating an electronic file containing a digital model of a modified an energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing of the digital model of the energy attenuation member that failed to meet the predetermined value).
Johnston does not teach:
transferring the electronic file containing the second digital model of the energy attenuation member to an additive manufacturing system.
However, Pietrzak teaches:
transferring the electronic file containing the second digital model of the energy attenuation member to an additive manufacturing system (¶ 0077, claim 2; Piertrzak teaches computerized model of energy attenuation layer can be produced by a 3D additive printer; this teaching indicates that the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member must be transferred to the 3D additive printer corresponding to an additive manufacturing system); and
Johnston and Pietrzak are analogous art because designing and forming an energy attenuation member for installation within a protective helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston and Pietrzak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Pietrzak’s teachings would have helped produce a custom-fitted helmet including customized protective layers (Pietrzak; ¶ 0077).
As per claim 19, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 12. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1, Johnston teaches further comprising installing the physical energy attenuation member in a physical protective sports helmet and testing said physical protective sports helmet using a helmet testing protocol (p. 12 right col. ¶ 3; Johnston teaches impact testing of multiple prototypes was performed using a standard NOCSAE drop system).
As per claim 22, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1, Johnston further teaches wherein the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member is partitioned into different segments, and wherein the different segments have differing mechanical properties (p. 14 Figs. 2-3; it can be seen that a digital model of the modified energy attenuation member is partitioned into different segments; p. 13 right col. ¶ 3, p. 14 Fig. 2, Johnston teaches a FE helmet model including pads with a foam segment and a 3D fabric segment corresponding to a first and second segment, respectively; these materials as described inherently have 2 corresponding sets of mechanical properties that are different from each other).
As per claim 27, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 13, Johnston further teaches comprising the steps of:
forming at least one physical energy attenuation member based on the second digital model (p. 11 left col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches forming padding members based on results of simulation to test and confirm improvement);
installing the at least one physical energy attenuation member in an energy attenuation assembly of the protective sports helmet (p. 11 right col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches models from two different manufacturers were retrofit with prototype pads and then compared with unmodified versions for attenuation of rotational acceleration; this teaching reads onto this limitation), and
wherein the energy attenuation assembly further includes a pre-manufactured energy attenuation member that is selected from amongst a plurality of pre-manufactured energy attenuation members based upon head data collected from a player using a handheld electronic device (p. 11 right col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches retrofitting a helmet with unmodified versions of pads; the unmodified versions of pads correspond to a pre-manufactured energy attenuation member as recited in this limitation).
As per claim 28, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 13, Johnston further teaches the step of:
forming at least one physical energy attenuation member based on the second digital model (p. 11 left col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches forming padding members based on results of simulation to test and confirm improvement); and
wherein the physical energy attenuation member includes a plurality of segments, and wherein said plurality of segments are determined based on testing of the protective sports helmet (p. 11 right col. ¶ 1; Johnston teaches models from two different manufacturers were retrofit with prototype pads and then compared with unmodified versions for attenuation of rotational acceleration; the prototype pads as discussed in claim 13 correspond to plurality of segments wherein said plurality of segments are determined based on testing of the protective sports helmet).
As per claim 30, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1,
Johnston further teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is based upon a mechanical property of the energy attenuation member in the digital model (p. 11 right col. ¶ 1, p. 12 left col. ¶ 1., and Fig. 7, Johnston teaches designing and simulating FEA simulations on several materials to select one material to achieve the improvement goal, see Johnston p. 12 right col. ¶ 3; these teachings indicate assessing whether a digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member, wherein the predetermined values are values of the existing helmet’s performance values comprising impact attenuation properties of the material, which correspond to a mechanical property of the energy attenuation member in the digital mode).
As per claim 31, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1,
Johnston further teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is impact energy absorption of the energy attenuation member in the digital model (p. 11 right col. ¶ 1, p. 12 left col. ¶ 1., and Fig. 7, Johnston teaches designing and simulating FEA simulations on several materials to select one material to achieve the improvement goal, see Johnston p. 12 right col. ¶ 3; these teachings indicate assessing whether a digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member, wherein the predetermined values are values of the existing helmet’s performance values comprising impact attenuation properties of the material, which correspond to impact energy absorption of the energy attenuation member in the digital model).
As per claim 32, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1,
Johnston further teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is the structural modulus (Es) of the digital model of the energy attenuation member (p. 13 left col. ¶ 2; Johnston teaches setting a specific value to elastic modulus (E) of padding; this teaching reads onto this limitation according to the instant application’s specification ¶ 00191).
As per claim 34, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 31. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 35, the multi-step method of claim 13,
Johnston further teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is based on a physical property of the digital model of the energy attenuation member (p. 11 right col. ¶ 1, p. 12 left col. ¶ 1., and Fig. 7, Johnston teaches designing and simulating FEA simulations on several materials to select one material to achieve the improvement goal, see Johnston p. 12 right col. ¶ 3; these teachings indicate assessing whether a digital model of the energy attenuation member meets a predetermined value pertaining to said energy attenuation member, wherein the predetermined values are values of the existing helmet’s performance values comprising impact attenuation properties of the material, which correspond to a physical property of the energy attenuation member in the digital mode).
Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. in view of Pietrzak et al. (US 2021/0055711) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Gokhale et al. (Force Diverting Helmet Liner Achieved Through A Lattice Of Multi-Material Compliant Mechanism, Aug. 2017).
As per claim 2, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1, Johnston further teaches wherein the digital model of the modified energy attenuation member includes an exterior perimeter (p. 13 left col. ¶ 3; Johnston teaches modeling a FE helmet including a helmet shell corresponding to an exterior perimeter and pads within the shell corresponding structures that are positioned within this exterior perimeter).
Johnston and Pietrzak do not teach:
a plurality of lattice unit cells that are positioned within this exterior perimeter.
However, Gokhale teaches:
a plurality of lattice unit cells that are positioned within this exterior perimeter (p. 2 left col. ¶ 3).
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Gokhale are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and designing a helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston, Pietrzak, and Gokhale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Gokhale’s teachings would have helped diverted the impact forces in multiple radial directions (Gokhale, p. 2 left col. ¶ 3).
As per claim 23, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1, wherein generating an electronic file containing a digital model of a modified energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing.
Johnston and Pietrzak do not teach:
a digital model of a modified energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing includes filling at least a portion of said modified energy attenuation member with a plurality of lattice cells.
However, Gokhale teaches:
a digital model of a modified energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing includes filling at least a portion of said modified energy attenuation member with a plurality of lattice cells (p. 2 left col. ¶ 3).
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Gokhale are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and designing a helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston, Pietrzak, and Gokhale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Gokhale’s teachings would have helped diverted the impact forces in multiple radial directions (Gokhale, p. 2 left col. ¶ 3).
Claims 8, 16, 26, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. in view of Pietrzak et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Rahimzadeh (Design of Protective Structures for Optimal Blast and Impact Mitigation, A dissertation for degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, 2016).
As per claim 8, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1,
Johnston and Pietrzak do not teach:
wherein the energy attenuation testing protocol is modified based on a data collected from the player.
However, Rahimzadeh teaches:
the energy attenuation testing protocol is modified based on data collected from the player (p. 105-107; Rahimzadeh teaches collecting data for different players, an adult struck player, striking player, a youth struck player, and striking player for virtual testing).
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and designing a helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Rahimzadeh’s teachings would have helped learn impulse mitigation, energy dissipation requirements to individual accordingly for more efficient design strategy (Rahimzadeh, p. 106 last paragraph).
As per claim 16, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 8. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 26, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 13,
Johnston and Pietrzak do not teach:
wherein the data collected from a plurality of prior impacts to protective sports helmets worn by a plurality of players is clustered based playing level of each player of the plurality of players.
However, Rahimzadeh teaches:
the data collected from a plurality of prior impacts to protective sports helmets worn by a plurality of players is clustered based playing level of each player of the plurality of players (p. 105-107; Rahimzadeh teaches collecting data for different players, professional players, adult players, and a youth players for virtual testing; these different players, professional player, adult layers, youth players correspond to a plurality of players is clustered based playing level of each player of the plurality of players).
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and designing a helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Rahimzadeh’s teachings would have helped learn impulse mitigation, energy dissipation requirements to individual accordingly for more efficient design strategy (p. 106 last paragraph).
As per claim 33, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 13,
Johnston and Pietrzak do not teach:
wherein the predetermined value is based on data collected from the player that is to wear the protective sports helmet.
However, Rahimzadeh teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is based on data collected from the player that is to wear the protective sports helmet. (p. 105-107; Rahimzadeh teaches collecting data for different players, an adult struck player, striking player, a youth struck player, and striking player for virtual testing; these are players who are to wear the protective sports helmet).
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and designing a helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Rahimzadeh’s teachings would have helped learn impulse mitigation, energy dissipation requirements to individual accordingly for more efficient design strategy (Rahimzadeh, p. 106 last paragraph).
Claims 9, 17, and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. in view of Pietrzak et al. and Rahimzadeh as applied to claims 8 and 16 above, and further in view of Crisco et al. (Frequency and Location of Head Impact Exposures in Individual Collegiate Football Players, Journal of Athletic Training, 2010).
As per claim 9, Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 8,
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh do not teach:
wherein the data collected from the player includes the player’s primary playing position in the contact sport.
However, Crisco teaches:
wherein the data collected from the player includes the player’s primary playing position in the contact sport (p. 549 right col. ¶ 1-2, p. 550 left col. last paragraph, p. 551 left col. ¶ 1); Crisco teaches collecting data for players at primary playing position including linemen and linebackers).
Johnston, Pietrzak, Rahimzadeh and Crisco are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling impacts on a helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston, Pietrzak, Rahimzadeh, and Crisco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Crisco’s teachings would have aided football-helmet manufacturers in establishing design specifications and governing bodies in setting testing criteria (Crisco, p. 558 left col. ¶ 2).
As per claim 17, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 9. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 21, Johnston, Pietrzak, Rahimzadeh, and Crisco in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 9,
Crisco further teaches:
the data collected from a plurality of players that play a specific playing position includes helmet impact data (p. 549 right col. ¶ 1-2, p. 550 left col. last paragraph, p. 551 left col. ¶ 1).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. in view of Pietrzak et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Crisco et al. (Frequency and Location of Head Impact Exposures in Individual Collegiate Football Players, Journal of Athletic Training, 2010).
As per claim 25, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 13,
Johnston and Pietrzak do not teach:
wherein the data collected from a plurality of prior impacts to protective sports helmets worn by a plurality of players is clustered based upon a primary position that each player of the plurality of players play while engaged in the contact sport.
However, Crisco teaches:
the data collected from a plurality of prior impacts to protective sports helmets worn by a plurality of players is clustered based upon a primary position that each player of the plurality of players play while engaged in the contact sport (p. 549 right col. ¶ 1-2, p. 550 left col. last paragraph, p. 551 left col. ¶ 1).
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Crisco are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling impacts on a helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Johnston, Pietrzak, and Crisco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Crisco’s teachings would have aided football-helmet manufacturers in establishing design specifications and governing bodies in setting testing criteria (Crisco, p. 558 left col. ¶ 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 29, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 13, Johnston further teaches comprising partitioning the second digital model of the energy attenuation assembly into different segments.
However, Johnston, Pietrzak, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach:
partitioning the second digital model of the energy attenuation assembly into different segments based on a set of results from said digital test of the first digital model of the energy attenuation member, and wherein the different segments have differing mechanical properties;
in combination with other limitations as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3676, 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.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights