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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 27-29 is/are amended. Claim 2, 8-9, 16, 26, and 30-59 remain canceled. Applicant’s amendments for claims 1, 28-29 overcame each and every claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/16/2025. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments to claims 1 and 4 are persuasive, and therefore, the claim objections for claims 1 and 4 is/are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments for the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 4 was further persuasive, and therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-7, 10-15, 17-25, 27-29, and 60 are presented for examination for Species 1: Figures 1-14, 18-19, and 22.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “a second” should be amended to read “a second layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-15, 17-22, 24-25, 27-29, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBerge et al. (US 5,093,931 A).
Regarding claim 1, LaBerge discloses a hockey-goalkeeper leg pad (20) wearable on a leg of the hockey goalkeeper (col. 1 lines 51-67) to protect the leg (col. 1 lines 40-46), the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad comprising a main pad member (46) configured to be wider than the leg (Figs. 1-3 & col. 1 lines 62-64, where 46 is wider than the channel for receiving the leg; see annotated Fig. 2 below of the channel for receiving the leg) and comprising an upper leg portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), a knee portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), a lower leg portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and a foot portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below) respectively configured to face an upper leg region, a knee, a lower leg region, and a foot of the leg (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the main pad member comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
496
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
467
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an outer cover (38) defining a frontmost surface of the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad that is configured to face away from the leg (see annotated Fig. 6 below; Examiner notes the term “frontmost” is very broad and merely means “relating to or located in the front”, see defn. of Princeton University, Farlex Inc, 2003-2012, entry via thefreedictionary.com/frontmost, and therefore, the outer cover 38 is in the front of 42 and faces away from the wearer’s leg, and therefore, “defining a frontmost surface of the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad facing away from the leg” inasmuch as claimed);
PNG
media_image3.png
270
343
media_image3.png
Greyscale
b. an inner liner configured to face the leg (26, Fig. 2); and
c. protective padding (30, 36, 42) disposed between the outer cover and the inner liner (Figs. 2 & 6; col. 4 lines 58-64; col. 5 lines 40-43), the protective padding comprising a plurality of padding elements (36, 42) including a front padding element (42) nearest the frontmost surface (see annotated Fig. 6 above) and at least two rearward padding elements disposed rearwardly from the front padding element (30, 36; Fig. 6), the plurality of padding elements being distinct and arranged adjacent one another in a thicknesswise direction of the main pad member (Fig. 6, where 30, 36, and 42, each have different thicknesses and are arranged adjacent to one another, and therefore, “being distinct and arranged adjacent one another in a thicknesswise direction of the main pad member”, inasmuch as claimed), wherein:
i. the front (42) padding element comprises a plurality of layers that are layered in the thicknesswise direction of the main pad member (col. 6 lines 25-29, where 42 is made of three laminated foam layers), the plurality of layers including a first layer nearest the frontmost surface (col. 6 lines 25-29 discloses a first exterior layer, the first exterior layer being closest to the annotated frontmost surface in Fig. 6 above) and a second layer disposed rearwardly of the first layer (col. 6 lines 25-29 discloses a central layer, the central layer being between the exterior layers, and therefore, being rearward of the first exterior layer);
ii. a material of the first layer is different from (col. 2 lines 40-44, HD polyethylene) a material of the second layer (col. 2 lines 40-44, LD polyethylene; col. 6 lines 22-27, when 42 is a laminated foam layer, then the first and second layers are different foam materials);
iv. and the front padding element has a thickness from a frontmost surface of the front padding element to a rearmost surface of the front padding element that is thinner than a thicker one of the at least two rearward padding elements (see annotated Fig. 6 below, where the thickness of 42 at a frontmost surface to a rearmost surface is thinner than 30, and 30 is the thicker one of 30 and 36).
PNG
media_image4.png
368
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While LaBerge discloses the first and second layers of the front padding element are made of different materials and stiffnesses (col. 2 lines 44-48, where the choice of the materials are dependent of fatigue resistance, which measures of the stiffness of a material).
LaBerge does not directly disclose
iii. the first layer is stiffer than the second layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the material of the first and second layers of the front padding element of LaBerge to have a stiffer first layer than the second layer in order to control the amount of rebound distance of an object off the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad (i.e. it is well known in the textile art that an HD foam is typically stiffer than an LD foam). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers of the front padding element have a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding at an first-ever impact of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding, and the layers of the front one of the padding elements have a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball (the plurality of layers of the front padding element would have a coefficient of restitution because the puck rebounds from the protective padding structure).
LaBerge does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of layers of the front padding element are configured such that a ratio of a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding at a first-ever impact of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding over the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h is at least 0.8.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the coefficient of restitution of the plurality of layers of the front padding element of LaBerge at a first-ever impact of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding over the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h is at least 0.8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the coefficient of restitution between the first and at least ten impacts at a specified location of the protective padding, of at least 80 km/h, is at least 0.8.
Regarding claim 4, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers of the front padding element have a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding at a first-ever impact of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding over the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball (the plurality of layers of the front padding element would have a coefficient of restitution because the puck rebounds from the protective padding structure).
LaBerge does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of layers of the front padding element are configured such that a ratio of a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding at a first-ever impact of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding over the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h is at least 0.9.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the coefficient of restitution of the plurality of layers of the front padding element of LaBerge at a first-ever impact of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding over the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h is at least 0.9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the coefficient of restitution between the first and at least ten impacts at a specified location of the protective padding, of at least 80 km/h, is at least 0.9.
Regarding claim 5, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers of the front padding element are configured such that a ratio of a thickness of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding over the thickness of the protective padding before any impact of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding exists (the plurality of layers of the front padding element have a thickness before and after at least ten impacts of the puck at a location).
LaBerge does not directly disclose wherein the layers of the front one of the padding elements are configured such that a ratio of a thickness of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h over the thickness of the protective padding before any impact of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding is at least 0.90.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize a ratio of a thickness of the protective padding of LaBerge after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h over the thickness of the protective padding before any impact of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding is at least 0.90, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of a thickness of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h over the thickness of the protective padding before any impact of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding is at least 0.90.
Regarding claim 6, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers of the front padding element are configured such that a ratio of a thickness of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding over the thickness of the protective padding before any impact of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding exists (the front one of the padding elements have a thickness before and after at least ten impacts of the puck at a location).
LaBerge does not directly disclose wherein the plurality of layers of the front padding element are configured such that a ratio of a thickness of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h over the thickness of the protective padding before any impact of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding is at least 0.95.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize a ratio of a thickness of the protective padding of LaBerge after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h over the thickness of the protective padding before any impact of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding is at least 0.95, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of a thickness of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of the puck or ball of at least 80 km/h over the thickness of the protective padding before any impact of the puck or ball at the specified location of the protective padding is at least 0.95.
Regarding claim 7, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 1, wherein a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed exists (the protective padding would have a coefficient of restitution because the hockey puck rebounds from the protective padding structure at a specified location).
LaBerge does not directly disclose wherein a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of 80 km/h is at least 0.35.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding of LaBerge after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of 80 km/h is at least 0.35.
Regarding claim 10, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers of the front padding element comprises a third layer disposed rearwardly of the first layer (col. 6 lines 25-29, where the first and third layer are exterior layers, a central layer exists between the exterior layers, and therefore, the third layer is rearwardly of the first layer), and a material of the third layer is different from the material of the second layer (col. 6 lines 25-29, the exterior layers, which includes the third layer, are homogeneous, and therefore different than the second layer).
Regarding claim 11, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 10, wherein the second layer is disposed between the first layer and the third layer (col. 6 lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 12, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 11, wherein the first layer is a frontmost layer, the second layer is an intermediate layer, and the third layer is an innermost layer (col. 6 lines 25-29; Examiner further notes that a reference point is not provided).
Regarding claim 13, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 12, wherein the material of the frontmost layer corresponds to the material of the innermost layer (col. 6 lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 14, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 11, wherein each of the material of the first layer (col. 2 lines 40-44, HD polyethylene) and the material of the third layer (col. 6 lines 25-29, where the first and third (exterior) layers are homogeneous, and therefore, the third layer is also HD polyethylene) is denser than the material of the second layer (col. 2 lines 40-44, LD polyethylene; where HD polyethylene is denser than LD polyethylene).
Regarding claim 15, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 11, except for wherein each of (i) a ratio of a density of the material of the first layer over a density of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of a density of the material of the third layer over the density of the material of the second layer is at least 1.1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize each of (i) a ratio of a density of the material of the first layer over a density of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of a density of the material of the third layer over the density of the material of the second layer is at least 1.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize each of (i) a ratio of a density of the material of the first layer over a density of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of a density of the material of the third layer over the density of the material of the second layer is at least 1.1.
Regarding claim 17, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 11, wherein each of the material of the layers of the padding elements have a stiffness (col. 2 lines 44-48, where the choice of the materials are dependent of fatigue resistance, which measures of the stiffness of a material).
LaBerge does not directly disclose wherein each of the material of the first layer and the material of the third layer is stiffer than the material of the second layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select each of the materials of the first and third layers of LaBerge to be stiffer than the material of the second layer in order to control the amount of rebound distance of an object off the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad (col. 1 lines 7-9). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 18, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 11, wherein each of the material of the layers of the padding elements has a modulus of elasticity (col. 2 lines 44-48, where the choice of the materials is dependent of compression resistance, which measures of the modulus of elasticity of a material).
LaBerge does not directly disclose each of a modulus of elasticity of the material of the first layer and a modulus of elasticity of the material of the third layer is greater than a modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select each of a modulus of elasticity of the material of the first and third layers of LaBerge to be greater than a modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer in order to control the amount of rebound distance of an object off the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad (col. 1 lines 7-9). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 18, except for wherein each of (i) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the first layer over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the third layer over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer is at least 1.1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize each of (i) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the first layer of LaBerge over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material layer of LaBerge over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer is at least 1.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize each of (i) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the first layer over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the third layer over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer is at least 1.1.
Regarding claim 20, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 18, except for wherein each of (i) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the first layer over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the third layer over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second one layer at least 1.3.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize each of (i) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the first layer LaBerge over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the third layer of LaBerge over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer at least 1.3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize each of (i) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the first layer over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer and (ii) a ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the material of the third layer over the modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer is at least 1.3.
Regarding claim 21, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 11, wherein each of the material of the first layer, the material of the second layer, and the material of the third layer is foam (col. 2 lines 40-48).
Regarding claim 22, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 21, wherein the foam of the first layer, the foam of the second layer, and the foam of the third layer are based on a common base polymer (col. 2 lines 40-48).
Regarding claim 23, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 22, except for wherein the common base polymer is polypropylene.
However, Hudon teaches a layered foam core (10) for an athletic protective pad, wherein the common base polymer is polypropylene (para. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polymer material of a leg pad of LaBerge with the leg pad polypropylene material taught by Hudon, as a simple substitution of one well known material for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a stiffer polymer to increase the deflection of a puck hitting the padding elements.
Regarding claim 24, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 10, wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer are affixed together without fasteners (col. 6 lines 22-27, when 42 is a laminated foam layer).
Regarding claim 25, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 10, wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer are fused together (col. 6 lines 22-27, when 42 is a laminated foam layer).
Regarding claim 27, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 1, wherein the thicker one of the at least two rearward padding elements is an intermediate padding element disposed between the front padding element and a rear one of the at least two padding elements (see annotated Fig. 6 above of claim 1 rejection; Examiner notes the term “between” is very broad and merely means “connecting spatially”, see defn. 2 of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/between, and therefore, 30 is the thicker of 30 and 36 and is “an intermediate padding element” between 36 and 42; 36 is “a rear one” of 30 and 36 because is opposite the surface facing externally toward the environment when the padding is worn).
Regarding claim 28, LaBerge discloses a hockey-goalkeeper leg pad (20) wearable on a leg of a hockey goalkeeper (col. 1 lines 51-67) to protect the leg (col. 1 lines 40-46), the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad comprising a main pad member (46) configured to be wider than the leg (Figs. 1-3 & col. 1 lines 62-64, where 46 is wider than the channel for receiving the leg; see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection, see the channel for receiving the leg) and comprising an upper leg portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), a knee portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), a lower leg portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), and a foot portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection) respectively configured to face an upper leg region, a knee, a lower leg region, and a foot of the leg (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 1 rejection), the main pad member comprising:
a. an outer cover (38) defining a frontmost surface of the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad that is configured to face away from the leg (see annotated Fig. 6 above of claim 1 rejection; Examiner notes the term “frontmost” is very broad and merely means “relating to or located in the front”, see defn. of Princeton University, Farlex Inc, 2003-2012, entry via thefreedictionary.com/frontmost, and therefore, the outer cover 38 is in the front of 42 and faces away from the wearer’s leg, and therefore, “defining a frontmost surface of the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad facing away from the leg” inasmuch as claimed);
b. an inner liner configured to face the leg (26, Fig. 2); and
c. protective padding (30, 36, 42) disposed between the outer cover and the inner liner (Figs. 2 & 6; col. 4 lines 58-64; col. 5 lines 40-43), the protective padding comprising a plurality of padding elements (36, 42) including a front padding element (42) nearest the frontmost surface (see annotated Fig. 6 above of claim 1 rejection) and at least two rearward padding elements disposed rearwardly from the front padding element (30, 36; Fig. 6), the plurality of padding elements being distinct and arranged adjacent one another in a thicknesswise direction of the main pad member (Fig. 6, where 30, 36, and 42, each have different thicknesses and are arranged adjacent to one another, and therefore, “being distinct and arranged adjacent one another in a thicknesswise direction of the main pad member”, inasmuch as claimed), wherein:
i. the front (42) padding element comprises a plurality of layers that are layered in the thicknesswise direction of the main pad member (col. 6 lines 22-27, where 42 is made of three laminated foam layers), the plurality of layers including a first layer nearest the frontmost surface (col. 6 lines 25-29 discloses a first exterior layer, the first exterior layer being closest to the annotated frontmost surface in Fig. 6 above of claim 1 rejection) and a second (col. 6 lines 25-29 discloses a central layer, the central layer being between the exterior layers, and therefore, being rearward of the first exterior layer) and third layer disposed rearwardly of the first layer (col. 6 lines 22-27, where 42 is made of three laminated foam layers, and the third layer has to exist rearwardly of the first layer);
ii. a material of the first layer is different from (col. 2 lines 40-44, HD polyethylene) a material of a second layer (col. 2 lines 40-44, LD polyethylene; col. 6 lines 22-27, when 42 is a laminated foam layer, then the first and second layers are different foam materials);
iii. a material of the third layer is different from the material of the second layer (col. 2 lines 40-44, vinyl nitrile; col. 6 lines 25-29, when 42 is a laminated foam layer, then the third and second layers are different foam materials);
iv. the second layer is disposed between the first layer and the third layer of the front padding element (col. 6 lines 25-29 discloses a central layer, the central layer being between the exterior layers);
vi. the front padding element has a thickness from a frontmost surface of the front padding element to a rearmost surface of the front padding element that is thinner than a thicker one of the at least two rearward padding elements (see annotated Fig. 6 below, where the thickness of 42 at a frontmost surface to a rearmost surface is thinner than 30, and 30 is the thicker one of 30 and 36);
vii. the protective padding occupies at least 70% of a thickness of the main pad member (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where a thickness of 46 is shown by the dashed line and a thickness of 42 is shown by the solid line, and a thickness of 42 occupies at least 70% of a thickness of 46);
viii. and each of a modulus of elasticity of the material of the first layer and a modulus of elasticity of the material of the third layer is greater than a modulus of elasticity of the material of the second layer (col. 2 lines 40-44 & col. 6 lines 22-27, where HD polyethylene and vinyl nitrile are materials with a higher modulus of elasticity than the LD polyethylene modulus of elasticity, and therefore, the first and third layers have a greater modulus of elasticity than the second one of the layers).
PNG
media_image5.png
652
495
media_image5.png
Greyscale
LaBerge does not directly disclose
v. the first layer is stiffer than the second layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the material of the first and second layers of the front padding element of LaBerge to have a stiffer first layer than the second layer in order to control the amount of rebound distance of an object off the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad (i.e. it is well known in the textile art that an HD foam is typically stiffer than an LD foam). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 29, LaBerge discloses a hockey-goalkeeper leg pad (20) wearable on a leg of the hockey goalkeeper (col. 1 lines 51-67) to protect the leg (col. 1 lines 40-46), the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad comprising a main pad member (46) configured to be wider than the leg (Figs. 1-3 & col. 1 lines 62-64, where 46 is wider than the channel for receiving the leg; see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection, see the channel for receiving the leg) and comprising an upper leg portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), a knee portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), a lower leg portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), and a foot portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection) respectively configured to face an upper leg region, a knee, a lower leg region, and a foot of the leg (see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 1 rejection), the main pad member comprising:
an outer cover (38) defining a frontmost surface of the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad that is configured to face away from the leg (see annotated Fig. 6 above of claim 1 rejection; Examiner notes the term “frontmost” is very broad and merely means “relating to or located in the front”, see defn. of Princeton University, Farlex Inc, 2003-2012, entry via thefreedictionary.com/frontmost, and therefore, the outer cover 38 is in the front of 42 and faces away from the wearer’s leg, and therefore, “defining a frontmost surface of the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad facing away from the leg” inasmuch as claimed);
b. an inner liner configured to face the leg (26, Fig. 2); and
c. protective padding (30, 36, 42) disposed between the outer cover and the inner liner (Figs. 2 & 6; col. 4 lines 58-64; col. 5 lines 40-43), the protective padding comprising a plurality of padding elements (30, 36, 42) including a front padding element (42) nearest the frontmost surface (see annotated Fig. 6 above of claim 1 rejection) and at least two rearward padding elements disposed rearwardly from the front padding element (30, 36; Fig. 6) , the plurality of padding elements being distinct and arranged adjacent one another in a thicknesswise direction of the main pad member (Fig. 6, where 30, 36, and 42, each have different thicknesses and are arranged adjacent to one another, and therefore, “being distinct and arranged adjacent one another in a thicknesswise direction of the main pad member”, inasmuch as claimed), wherein:
i. the front padding element (42) comprises a plurality of layers that are layered in the thicknesswise direction of the main pad member (col. 6 lines 22-27, where 42 is laminated foam layers), the plurality of layers including a first layer nearest the frontmost surface (col. 6 lines 25-29 discloses a first exterior layer, the first exterior layer being closest to the annotated frontmost surface in Fig. 6 above) and a second layer disposed rearwardly of the first layer (col. 6 lines 25-29 discloses a central layer, the central layer being between the exterior layers, and therefore, being rearward of the first exterior layer) and configured to generate a springboard effect when a puck or ball impacts the main pad member (col. 2 lines 22-39, variations of the material of 42 is used to change the amount of rebound of the hockey puck off the protective equipment);
ii. a material of first layer (col. 2 lines 40-44, HD polyethylene) is different from a material of a second layer (col. 2 lines 40-44, LD polyethylene; col. 6 lines 22-27, when 42 is a laminated foam layer, then the first and second layers are different foam materials);
iv. the front padding element has a thickness from a frontmost surface of the front padding element to a rearmost surface of the front padding element that is thinner than a thicker one of the at least two rearward padding elements (see annotated Fig. 6 above of claim 1 rejection, where the thickness of 42 at a frontmost surface to a rearmost surface is thinner than 30, and 30 is the thicker one of 30 and 36);
v. and a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed exists (the protective padding would have a coefficient of restitution because the hockey puck rebounds from the protective padding structure at a specified location).
LaBerge does not directly disclose
iii. the first layer is stiffer than the second layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the material of the first and second layers of the front padding element of LaBerge to have a stiffer first layer than the second layer in order to control the amount of rebound distance of an object off the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad (i.e. it is well known in the textile art that an HD foam is typically stiffer than an LD foam). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
LaBerge also does not directly disclose
v. a coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of 80 km/h is at least 0.35.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding of LaBerge after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed difference is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the coefficient of restitution of the protective padding after at least ten impacts of a puck or ball at a specified location of the protective padding with an inbound speed of 80 km/h is at least 0.35.
Regarding claim 60, LaBerge further discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 1, wherein: the protective padding occupies at least 90% of the thickness of the main pad member (see annotated Fig. 3 below, where a thickness of 46 is shown by the dashed line and a thickness of 42 is shown by the solid line, and a thickness of 42 occupies at least 90% of a thickness of 46).
PNG
media_image5.png
652
495
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBerge et al. (US 5,093,931 A), in view of Hudon et al. (US 2009/0025114 A1).
Regarding claim 23, LaBerge discloses the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad of claim 22, except for wherein the common base polymer is polypropylene.
However, Hudon teaches a layered foam core (10) for an athletic protective pad, wherein the common base polymer is polypropylene (para. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polymer material of a leg pad of LaBerge with the leg pad polypropylene material taught by Hudon, as a simple substitution of one well known material for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a stiffer polymer to increase the deflection of a puck hitting the padding elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/16/2025 for claims 1, 28, and 29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the amended limitations, in which additional consideration and reinterpretation has been given for a new grounds of rejection, as stated above.
Regarding claims 1 and 28-29, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts Examiner is using broadest possible interpretation and not broadest reasonable interpretation for what is considered the frontmost surface as annotated in Fig. 6 of the fabric cover 38 in the prior art of LaBerge.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant claims the configuration for what a frontmost surface of the outer cover is in relation to, which is “configured to face away from the leg”. As such, LaBerge discloses the limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation. The rejections for claims 1 and 28-29 is/are maintained as stated above.
Regarding claim 28, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that pads 46 of LaBerge are not part of the main pad member and/or protective padding, and pads 46 are part of cosmetic component layer 22. Further, Applicant asserts LaBerge fails to disclose “the protective padding occupies at least 70% of a thickness of the main pad member”. Applicant additionally submits that the annotated lines are showing the lengths and not the thicknesses (“the distance between opposite sides of something; the smallest of three dimensions”).
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because the current claim language does not preclude pads 46 from being a part of the main pad member. Pads 46 are still padding structures as disclosed in LaBerge in at least col. 5 lines 18-19. Examiner further disagrees with Applicant’s assertions that pads 46 are not occupying at least 70% of a thickness of the main pad member because Fig. 3 (and annotated Fig. 3 of claim 28 rejection) clearly shows this limitation. Regarding Applicant’s assertions that the annotated lines of Fig. 3 are not showing the distance between opposite sides of something and/or the smallest of three dimensions, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the annotated lines clearly show the distance between opposite sides of the padding structures of LaBerge. Further, Applicant does not explicitly claim the thickness being the smallest of three dimensions, and therefore, the annotated lines meet the limitation as currently claimed. The rejection of claim 28 is maintained as stated above.
Regarding claims 1 and 28-29, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to rearrange the layers of LaBerge’s element 42 in the manner suggested by Examiner and in doing so would require an impermissible substantial reconstruction and redesign of LaBerge’s elements.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner submits that the rejections of claims 1 and 28-29 do not rearrange the first and second layers, as the provided motivation for modifying the first and second layers’ stiffnesses was to control the amount of rebound distance of an object off the hockey-goalkeeper leg pad and that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07 (see rejection above). Modifying the stiffness of the first and second layers of the padding would not be impermissible substantial reconstruction and design of LaBerge’s elements because LaBerge’s layers allow for the changing of the foam layers (col. 2 lines 17-21). Further, the incision patterns are variable (col. 2 lines 30-35), which would change the stiffnesses of the foam layers. Further, the density and configuration are designed to be variables (col. 2 lines 36-39). As such, LaBerge’s disclosures of the possible variations in the foam layers would not be an impermissible substantial reconstruction of the design. The rejection for claims 1 and 28-29 is/are maintained as stated above.
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 GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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 on 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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights