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
Claims 20-29 have been added. Claims 11 and 14-15 have been canceled. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16-29 are pending. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16-29 have been considered and rejected.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to independent claims 1 and 13 overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections for being directed to abstract ideas. The 35 USC 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-10, and 12 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to independent claim 1.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 9 and 17 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to the independent claims.
The duplicate claim warning of claim 11 has been withdrawn in light of cancellation of claim 11.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2025 regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1, see p. 12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that Johnson does not teach “generating an energy attenuation member based on the partitioned model of the energy attenuation member,” see p. 12 ¶ 2.
The Applicant argues that Johnson teaches a process of going from simulation of pads, to testing of simulated pads, to fabrication of physical phototype pads, to physical testing of prototype pads. As such Table 3 and 4 in Johnston reference are outputs based on prototype pads, and are not inputs used to create the prototype pads, see p. 12 ¶ 3. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Johnston, on p. 12 right col. ¶ 3, teaches “addressing the issue of rotational protection, a multi-disciplinary group … was assembled at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. FEA simulation modeling was performed in an effort to evaluate several kinematic and material solutions related to the issue of rotational protection, before selecting material solution to be added to the existing helmet design .” On p. 13 left col. ¶ 3, Johnston teaches “For purposes of FE modeling, a large, representative size Schutt ION4D … was used. Two football helmet FE models were developed, Schutt ION4D and Schutt ION4D + UAB (Fig. 2). The latter represents proposed modification of the padding done by the UAB team. On p. 15 left col. last paragraph – right col. ¶ 1. Johnston teaches comparing testing simulations of modified and unmodified helmets. Finally, on p. 16 left col. ¶ 2 – right col. ¶ 1, Johnston teaches performing several testing simulations, modeling different material properties of the prototype pads before selecting one for used for fabrication. These teachings mean a digital model, corresponding to an electronic file containing a digital model, of a modified energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing of the digital model of the energy attenuation member, corresponding to prototype pads are pads modified from input pads.
The Applicant, furthermore, argues that forward-looking statements including “Finally, once superior performance is demonstrated … before such a design may be used on the playing field” teach away from the allegation that the cited testing results are or can be directly used in the design and generation of helmet pads, see p. 12 second half of ¶ 3. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., weight, breathability, comfort, and cost etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant, moreover, argues that Johnston does not teach limitations “generating an electronic file containing … of the energy attenuation member.” This argument was addressed above and stated here: on p. 16 left col. ¶ 2 – right col. ¶ 1, Johnston teaches performing several testing simulations, modeling different material properties of the prototype pads before selecting one for used for fabrication. These teachings mean a digital model, corresponding to an electronic file containing a digital model, of a modified energy attenuation member based on results of the digital testing of the digital model of the energy attenuation member.
The Applicant also argues that Johnston does not teach the newly added limitation “transferring the digital model …to an additive manufacturing system,” see p. 13 ¶ 1. The Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection rely on an additional reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant argues independent claim 13 is allowable for reciting limitations analogous to those in claim 1. Claim 13 remain rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, 14-15, and 18 are argued allowable for depending on independent claims 1 and 13, see pp. 13. Since independent claims 1 and 13 remain rejected, claims 3-4, 10-11, 14-15, and 18 remain rejected.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16-29 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim 1 recites “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.” It is not clear what results of the digital testing would require a modification of the energy attenuation member to generate an electronic file containing a digital model of a modified an energy attenuation member. Is there a criteria, goal, or standard for the modification to meet. Claim 1 is, hence, rejected as indefinite.
Independent claim 13 recites a limitation analogous to this limitation, so claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-10, 12, 16-29 depend on claims 1 and 13, respectively, and do not cure the defects. They are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 18-20, 22, and 27-29 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 (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);
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 (p. 12 right col. ¶ 3, p. 13 left col. ¶ 3, p. 16 left col. ¶ 2 – right col. ¶ 1; discussions of these paragraphs are in the Response to Arguments section).
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 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 and structures that are positioned within this 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).
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 10, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 1, Pietrzak further teaches wherein the step of forming the physical energy attenuation member utilizes a three dimensional printer (¶ 0077, claim 2).
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 (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);
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, wherein the energy attenuation member model includes an exterior perimeter and structures that are positioned within this exterior perimeter (p. 12 right col. ¶ 3, p. 13 left col. ¶ 3, p. 16 left col. ¶ 2 – right col. ¶ 1; discussions of these paragraphs are in the Response to Arguments section; p. 14 Figs. 3(b) & (d) illustrate the energy attenuation member model includes an exterior perimeter and structures that are positioned within this exterior perimeter).
Johnston does not teach:
transferring the electronic file containing the second digital model of the energy attenuation member to an additive manufacturing system; and
using the additive manufacturing system to form at least one physical energy attenuation member based on the second digital model.
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
using the additive manufacturing system to form at least one physical energy attenuation member based on the second digital model (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 18, these limitations have been discussed in claim 10. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
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 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 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 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 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 (p. 14 Figs. 3(b) & (d); these figures illustrate the Schutt ION4D hybrid modified from the Schutt ION4D based on results of testing as discussed in claim 13, corresponding to the second digital model of the energy attenuation assembly partitioned into different segments based on a set of results from said digital test of the first digital model of the energy attenuation member; the different segments have different structures and shapes, so they have different mechanical properties).
Claims 3-4 and 23-24 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 3, Johnston and Pietrzak in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 2,
Johnston and Pietrzak do not teach:
wherein the structures that are positioned within said exterior perimeter are lattice unit cells.
However, Gokhale teaches:
the structures that are positioned within said exterior perimeter are lattice unit 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).
As per claim 4, Johnston, Pietrzak, and Gokhale in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 3, Gokhale further teaches wherein the lattice unit cells have:
(i) a type (p. 4 Table 2; Gokhale teaches FE types), (ii) a positional angle (p. 4 Figs. 6-7; these figures illustrate angle of lattice unit cells connected horizontal to one another), (iii) a density (p. 4 Table 2; Gokhale teaches FE types; Gokhale teaches density of a cell), and (iv) a chemical composition (p. 3 right col. ¶ 2; Gokhale teaches chemical composition of materials considered in a lattice design).
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).
As per claim 24, Johnston, Pietrzak, and Gokhale in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 23, further comprising digitally testing said modified energy attenuation member using the energy attenuation testing protocol.
Gokhale further teaches:
said modified energy attenuation member having a plurality of lattice cells (p. 2 left col. ¶ 3).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. in view of Pietrzak et al. and Gokhale et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Khosroshahi (New Energy Absorbing Materials and Their Use In Personal Protective Equipment, Department of Industrial Engineering, Universita Degli Studi Di Padava, 2013).
As per claim 5, Johnston, Pietrzak, and Gokhale in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 3,
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Gokhale do not teach:
wherein the lattice unit cells are of a surface based lattice cell type.
However, Khosroshahi teaches:
the lattice unit cell type is a surface based lattice cell type (p. 35 ¶ 1 – p. 36).
Johnston, Pietrzak, Gokhale, and Khosroshahi 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, Gokhale, and Khosroshahi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Khosroshahi’s teachings would have provide a lattice structure to absorb energy by surfaces and entrapped gas inside the cell (Khosroshahi , p. 36 ¶ 1-2)
Claims 8-9, 16-17, and 26 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 9, Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 8, Rahimzadeh further teaches wherein the data collected from the player includes the player’s
As per claim 16, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 8. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 17, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 9. 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).
Claim 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 claim 9 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 21, Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh in combination teach the multi-step method of claim 9,
Johnston, Pietrzak, and Rahimzadeh do not teach:
wherein the data collected from a plurality of players that play a specific playing position includes helmet impact data.
However, Crisco 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).
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).
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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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