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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 02/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 17-24 are presented, of which dependent claims 23-24 are new.
Claims 1, 13, and 19 are presented in independent form and are amended.
In addition, dependent claims 7-8, 12, and 20 are amended.
The present office action treats claims 1-9, 11-13, and 17-24 on the merits.
The present office action is a non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 02/20/2025 are acknowledged (see p. 6-11 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding “a telephone conference...expedite the prosecution” (p. 11): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Upon considering the amendment and remarks of 02/20/2025 and upon further consideration of the disclosure as filed, it appears that an interview regarding the amendment of 02/20/2025 would not result in expediting the allowance of the application; however, it is noted that Examiner generally promotes interviews that improve the mutual understanding of specific issues in an application. It is further noted that there is no power of attorney on file in the application; attention is drawn to MPEP 713 which states and in relevant part, emphases provided by Examiner: ...Generally, interviews that improve the mutual understanding of specific issues in an application should be promoted...In general, interviews are not granted to persons who lack proper authorization from the applicant or attorney or agent of record in the form of a submission on file in the application. A MERE POWER TO INSPECT IS NOT SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY FOR GRANTING AN INTERVIEW INVOLVING THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION.¶ Interviews are generally not granted to registered individuals to whom there is no power of attorney or authorization to act in a representative capacity. Further information regarding the scheduling of Applicant-initiated interviews is provided in the Conclusion section of this office action.
Regarding Claim Objections (p. 6): Applicant’s remarks are fully considered. The claim amendments render the claim objections as applied in the previous office action moot.
Regarding Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (p. 6): Applicant’s remarks are fully considered. The claim amendments render the 35 USC 112 rejections as applied in the previous office action moot. However, the amended claims have necessitated new 35 USC 112 rejections; see rejections below.
Regarding Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (p. 6-7): Applicant’s remarks are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 7-10): Applicant’s remarks are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding New Claims (p. 10): Applicant’s remarks are fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The reference character “160” has been used to designate both “plurality of shocks” (para 54) and “shock mounts” (para 54).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 line 7: “within the intermediate isolator” should be --within the intermediate isolator shell--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites new matter in claiming a shock “includes a first shock mount...and a second shock mount”. The specification states that a shock and a shock mount are separate elements; see e.g. “plurality of shocks 160 are coupled to the outer shell 110 and the inner shell 140 of the helmet 100 via shock mounts 162” (para 54); “first shock mount 162A is coupled to the first end 164 of the shock 160 and the second shock mount 162B is coupled to the second end 166 of the shock 160” (para 53). Accordingly, reciting that a shock includes a shock mount is new matter (emphasis provided by Examiner).
Claims 2-9, 11-12, 18, and 21-23 are rejected if only because they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Lee, US 2016/0161222].
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses (Figs. 1-3, 5, and 7-8):
A helmet 1 comprising:
an outer shell 10 including a plurality of outer shell openings (into which each of 43 extends; see Fig. 8);
an inner shell 20 disposed within the outer shell 10 and including a plurality of inner shell openings 41 extending from an inner shell inner surface to an inner shell outer surface (Fig. 8); and
a plurality of shocks 40a (i.e. the two of 40a identified in below annotated Fig. 3 – a below) coupling the outer shell 10 to the inner shell 20, wherein a first end of each shock (an end of 60 at 43; Fig. 8) is coupled (via 43) to the outer shell 10 and a second end of each shock (an end of 60 at 44; Fig. 8) is coupled (via 44) to the inner shell, wherein each shock of the plurality of shocks includes a first shock mount 43 coupled to the first end of the shock (Fig. 8) and coupled to and disposed within a corresponding one of the plurality of outer shell openings (Fig. 8), and a second shock mount 44 coupled to the second end of the shock (Fig. 8) and coupled to and disposed within a corresponding one of the plurality of inner shell openings (Fig. 8),
wherein each of the plurality of shocks extends from the outer shell to the inner shell at a non-perpendicular angle (see annotated Fig. 3 – a below) relative to the inner shell and the outer shell.
PNG
media_image1.png
663
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does Figs. 1-3, 5, and 7-8 does not expressly disclose the outer shell 10 including a plurality of outer shell openings extending from an outer shell inner surface to an outer shell outer surface.
Rather and looking to Fig. 8, the outer shell opening into which 43 is provided appears to be extending from an outer shell inner surface to a location between the inner shell surface and an outer shell surface; see Fig. 8.
However and in further view of Lee:
Lee as embodied in Fig. 10 teaches another shock 50 wherein a first end (of 60 at the combined 51 and N) of the shock is coupled (via the combined 51 and N) to the outer shell 10 and includes a shock mount (the combined 51 and N) coupled (Fig. 10) to the first end of the shock and coupled to and disposed within an outer shell opening (within which 51 is provided) extending from an outer shell inner surface to an outer shell outer surface (Fig. 10).
It 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 to have modified the helmet of Lee Figs. 1-3, 5, and 7-8 such that its plurality of outer shell openings extending from an outer shell inner surface to an outer shell outer surface, as in Lee Fig. 10, in order to yield the predictable result of a helmet whose first shock mounts that are durably connected to the outer shell. One of ordinary skill would expect durable connection of a first shock mount to the outer shell to be achieved via its extending into an opening partially extending through the outer shell (as appears to be the case in Fig. 8) and/or into an opening that fully extends through the outer shell (as in Fig. 10 and in the modified Lee as explained above) based on the teachings of Lee.
Regarding claim 22:
Lee teaches The helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein the plurality of shocks enable the outer shell and the inner shell to slide and rotate in a controlled manner to enable deceleration of energy from the outer shell to the inner shell (para 62).
Regarding claim 23:
Lee teaches The helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee further discloses wherein each of the plurality of shocks includes a spring 60.
Lee does not expressly disclose and a body disposed between the first end and the second end.
However and in further view of Lee:
Lee as embodied in Fig. 9 teaches a body 45 disposed between a first end of a spring 60 and a second end of the spring 60 wherein securement of the shock to the inner shell is provided via shock mount N in combination with the body 45 (Fig. 9; para 60).
It 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 to have modified the modified Lee such that each of the plurality of shocks is provided with a body disposed between the first end and the second end in order to permit durable securement of each shock to the inner shell via the combination of the body and the shock mount. One of ordinary skill would expect such durable securement to be achieved if the shock were secured to the inner shell via only a shock mount as in Fig. 8 or by a combined shock mount and body as in Fig. 9.
Claim(s) 2-6, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Lee, US 2016/0161222] in view of [Hawkins, US 2006/0191403, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Lee teaches The helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee does not expressly disclose further comprising an intermediate isolator shell disposed within and coupled to the outer shell, wherein the inner shell is disposed within the intermediate isolator shell.
However, Hawkins teaches, and pertinent to “helmets” (para 2), a “force diversion apparatus” (Fig. 5; para 20) wherein inner (118) and outer (104) shells coupled to a plurality of shocks (108) further comprising an intermediate isolator shell (122) disposed between inner (118) and outer (104) shells and coupled to outer shell wherein the intermediate isolator shell (122) includes a plurality of isolator shell openings (the space through which plurality of shocks 108 extends) disposed therethrough, wherein each of the plurality of shocks extends through a corresponding opening of the plurality of isolator shell openings (Fig. 5).
Hawkins further teaches the intermediate isolator shell (122) is such that transverse portions of plurality of shocks (108) are supported such that the plurality of shocks (108) can flex in the manner shown in Figs. 4A-4B but will not buckle as shown in Fig. 6 (para 53).
It 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 to have modified the modified Lee such that it is provided with an intermediate isolator shell disposed within and coupled to the outer shell, wherein the inner shell is disposed within the intermediate isolator shell, wherein the intermediate isolator shell includes a plurality of isolator shell openings disposed therethrough, wherein each shock of the plurality of shocks extends through a corresponding opening of the plurality of isolator shell openings, in the same manner that intermediate isolator shell 122 is arranged relative to plurality of shocks 108 and shells 104 and 118 in Fig. 5 of Hawkins in order to support the plurality of shocks so as to permit their flexion and also so as to prevent their undesirable buckling, as taught by Hawkins (para 53).
Regarding claim 3:
Lee in view of Hawkins teaches The helmet of claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Lee as applied to claim 2 further meets the limitation wherein the intermediate isolator shell includes a plurality of isolator shell openings disposed therethrough, wherein each shock of the plurality of shocks extends through a corresponding opening of the plurality of isolator shell openings (refer to above treatment of claim 2, wherein the limitation is presented as being taught by Hawkins Fig. 5 and applied to the helmet).
Regarding claim 4:
Lee in view of Hawkins teaches The helmet of claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Lee as applied to claim 3 above does not expressly teach further comprising an intermediate damping shell, the intermediate damping shell disposed within the intermediate isolator shell, and the inner shell disposed within and coupled to the intermediate damping shell.
However:
The modified Lee as applied to claim 3 comprises a singular shell disposed between inner and outer shells in the same manner that the singular shell 122 is disposed between shell 118 and shell 104 of Fig. 5 of Hawkins.
It is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art; see MPEP 2144 VI.B.
It 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 to have constructed the modified Lee as having an additional shell 122 disposed between its inner and outer shells, with each shell having a plurality of openings disposed therethrough, wherein each shock of the plurality of shocks extends through a corresponding opening of the plurality of openings of each shell, in order to yield the predictable result of a helmet that is particularly well suited to support the plurality of shocks so as to permit their flexion and also so as to prevent their undesirable buckling due to the presence of plural layers of shell material performing such function.
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at further comprising an intermediate damping shell, the intermediate damping shell disposed within the intermediate isolator shell, and the inner shell disposed within and coupled to the intermediate damping shell because the additional shell would be an intermediate damping shell, would be disposed within the intermediate isolator shell, and the inner shell would be disposed within and coupled to the intermediate damping shell.
Regarding claim 5:
Lee in view of Hawkins teaches The helmet of claim 4, as set forth above.
The modified Lee as applied to claim 4 further meets the limitation wherein the intermediate damping shell includes a plurality of damping shell openings disposed therethrough, wherein each shock of the plurality of shocks extends through a corresponding damping shell opening of the plurality of damping shell openings (refer to above treatment of claim 4, wherein the limitation is presented as being taught by duplicating that element 122 of Hawkins Fig. 5 and applied to the helmet and applying two shells having openings as claimed between inner and outer shells; refer to above treatment of claim 4.).
Regarding claim 6:
Lee in view of Hawkins teaches The helmet of claim 4, as set forth above.
Insofar as Lee discloses the outer shell comprises fiber-reinforced plastic (“aramid fiber...impregnat[]...with polymer resin...curing”; para 69, 70, 72) Lee further discloses wherein the outer shell comprises carbon reinforced nylon, polyamide 6 (PA6), nylon 66 (PA66), and/or fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP).
Regarding claim 18:
Lee in view of Hawkins teaches The helmet of claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Lee does not meet the limitation wherein the corresponding openings in the intermediate isolator shell are elongated in a direction parallel to the intermediate isolator shell.
However:
It 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 to have modified the modified Lee such that the corresponding openings in the intermediate isolator shell are elongated in a direction parallel to the intermediate isolator shell in order to permit free movement of 60 of the shocks in a direction parallel to the intermediate isolator shell within the elongated openings while also preventing undesirable buckling of the shocks.
Regarding claim 21:
Lee in view of Hawkins teaches The helmet of claim 5, as set forth above.
The modified Lee does not meet the limitation wherein the corresponding openings in the intermediate isolator shell are elongated in a direction parallel to the intermediate damping shell.
However:
It 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 to have modified the modified Lee such that the corresponding openings in the intermediate isolator shell are elongated in a direction parallel to the intermediate damping shell in order to permit free movement of 60 of the shocks in a direction parallel to the intermediate isolator shell within the elongated openings while also preventing undesirable buckling of the shocks.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Lee, US 2016/0161222] and [Hawkins, US 2006/0191403] as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of [Frey, US 2013/0234376, previously cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Lee in view of Hawkins teaches The helmet of claim 6, as set forth above.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the intermediate isolator shell comprises a first material selected from thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam, silicone foam, and/or elastomers, the first material having hardness from Shore 20A to 80A.
However, Hawkins teaches the material appropriate for layer 122 “may be any suitable fluid or solid, preferred materials include natural rubber and rubber-like materials, such as polyurethane, silicone, Neoprene and Latex” (para 53) such that elastomer (i.e. rubber) having a finite resilience is disclosed.
Nevertheless, Frey teaches shell material appropriate for helmets (para 31, para 91) wherein a damping component is an elastomer of Shore Hardness A of 16-56 (para 42).
Frey further teaches the material is appropriate for damping an impact force (para 42).
Because Frey is concerned with desired damping of helmet shell material and provides a range (i.e. 16 Shore A – 56 Shore A) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed Shore hardness value through routine experimentation in order to provide desired helmet properties. The claimed hardness is merely an optimum or workable hardness and the hardness of the shell material is expected to affect impact force damping properties of the helmet.
It 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 to have modified the modified Lee such that its intermediate isolator shell comprises a first elastomer material, the material having a hardness of 20-56 Shore A, which is within the claimed range of 20A-80A, in order to provide damping properties to the shell via the material of construction of the shell, as suggested by Frey (para 42).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee in view of Hawkins and Frey teach The helmet of claim 7, as set forth above.
Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the intermediate damping shell comprises a second material selected from thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam, silicone foam, and/or elastomers characteristics, the second material having hardness from Shore 20A to 80A.
However, Hawkins teaches the material appropriate for layer 122 “may be any suitable fluid or solid, preferred materials include natural rubber and rubber-like materials, such as polyurethane, silicone, Neoprene and Latex” (para 53) such that elastomer (i.e. rubber) having a finite resilience is disclosed.
Nevertheless, Frey teaches shell material appropriate for helmets (para 31, para 91) wherein a damping component is an elastomer of Shore Hardness A of 16-56 (para 42).
Frey further teaches the material is appropriate for damping an impact force (para 42).
Because Frey is concerned with desired damping of helmet shell material and provides a range (i.e. 16 Shore A – 56 Shore A) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed Shore hardness value through routine experimentation in order to provide desired helmet properties. The claimed hardness is merely an optimum or workable hardness and the hardness of the shell material is expected to affect impact force damping properties of the helmet.
It 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 to have modified the modified Lee such that its intermediate damping shell comprises a second elastomer material, the material having a hardness of 20-56 Shore A, which is within the claimed range of 20A-80A, in order to provide damping properties to the shell via the material of construction of the shell, as suggested by Frey (para 42).
Regarding claim 9:
Lee in view of Hawkins and Frey teach The helmet of claim 8, as set forth above.
Insofar as Lee discloses the inner outer shell comprises fiber-reinforced plastic (“aramid fiber...impregnat[]...with polymer resin...curing”; para 69, 70, 72), Lee further discloses wherein the inner shell comprises carbon reinforced nylon, polyamide 6 (PA6), nylon 66 (PA66), and/or fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Lee, US 2016/0161222] in view of [Nauman, US 2014/0196998, previously cited].
Regarding claim 11:
Lee teaches The helmet of claim 1, as set forth above.
Lee does not expressly disclose further comprising inner padding disposed within and coupled to an interior of the inner shell.
However, Nauman teaches (Fig. 18) an inner padding 20 disposed within and coupled to an interior of a helmet shell (Fig. 18).
Nauman further teaches the padding is configured to absorb energy, isolate vibration, and impart cushioning to the helmet (para 64).
It 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 to have modified the modified Lee such that it is provided with an inner padding disposed within and coupled to an interior of its inner shell, as is the padding of Nauman to its shell, in order to render the helmet more capable of energy absorption, vibration isolation, and/or cushioning to the wearer, as suggested by Nauman (para 64).
Regarding claim 12:
Lee in view of Nauman teach The helmet of claim 11, as set forth above.
Lee does not expressly disclose the inner padding comprises a memory foam having a natural frequency below 100 Hz.
However, in further view of Nauman:
Nauman as embodied in para 147 teaches the padding comprising a memory foam (para 71, wherein the “foam” of para 71 is a memory foam in that its behavior is dependent upon a prior state of said memory foam as described in para 70; i.e. “As the impact-absorbing materials 20 are compressed, they more gradually and more continuously stiffen to absorb more energy”) should have a natural frequency of 10-300 Hz (para 147) based on a variety of impacts to which a helmet is expected to be subjected (paras 145-147) and the optimal frequency is to be bound by a frequency that is different from both the natural frequency of a human head and also the natural frequency of the impact event (para 145).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hawkins such that its inner padding comprises a memory foam having a natural frequency below 100 Hz in order to yield the predictable result of a helmet that protects against impacts that exceed the natural frequency of a 100+Hz impact imparted thereto, as suggested by Nauman (para 145).
Claim(s) 19-20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Morgan, US 2019/0328073].
Regarding claim 19:
Morgan discloses (Fig. 8B):
A helmet 400’ comprising:
an outer shell 401’;
an inner shell 802a disposed within the outer shell;
a plurality of shocks 700 coupling the outer shell to the inner shell, wherein a first end of each shock is coupled to the outer shell (“attached to an inner side of...outer shell 401’”; para 120; Fig. 8B) and a second end of each shock 703b is coupled to (Fig. 8B) the inner shell 802a;
an intermediate isolator shell 402’ disposed within (Fig. 8B) and coupled to (Fig. 8B) the outer shell 401’, wherein the inner shell 802a is disposed within (Fig. 8B) the intermediate isolator 402’, wherein the intermediate isolator shell 402’ includes a plurality of isolator shell openings 406’ disposed therethrough, wherein each shock of the plurality of shocks 700 extends through (Fig. 8B) a corresponding opening of the plurality of isolator shell openings 406’; and
an intermediate damping shell 802, the intermediate damping shell disposed within (Fig. 8B) the intermediate isolator shell 402’, and the inner shell 802a disposed within (Fig. 8b) and coupled to (para 120; Fig. 8B) the intermediate damping shell 802,
wherein the intermediate isolator shell 402’ and the intermediate damping shell 802 are not directly coupled to one another in the portion of the helmet viewed in Fig. 8 (intermediate damping shell “802...is spaced from the” intermediate isolator shell 402’; para 120; Fig 8B).
Morgan does not expressly disclose wherein the intermediate isolator shell and the intermediate damping shell are not directly coupled to one another insofar as Morgan Fig. 8B does not show all portions of the helmet in the view of Fig. 8B. Nonetheless, one of ordinary skill would look to Fig. 8B and para 120 and recognize that the intermediate damping shell 802 “is spaced from” the intermediate isolator shell 402’ and at least expect that the intermediate isolator shell and the intermediate damping shell could be not directly coupled to one another throughout the entire extent of the helmet, although Morgan is silent as to this feature.
It 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 to have modified the helmet of Morgan such that its intermediate isolator shell and the intermediate damping shell are not directly coupled to one another throughout the helmet, in the same way the feature is shown and described in relation to the portion of the helmet presented in Fig. 8B and described in para 120, in order to yield the predictable result of a helmet whose plurality of shocks 700 is capable of protection to a wearer of the helmet against repetitive impact forces, a motivation found within Morgan (para 17). One of ordinary skill would recognize that the shocks afford this feature (para 17) and that by providing the intermediate isolator shell and the intermediate damping shell are not directly coupled to one another throughout the helmet, the plurality of shocks would be able to protect against repetitive impact forces as opposed to said repetitive impact forces being exerted upon portions of the intermediate isolator shell and the intermediate damping shell that would otherwise be directly coupled to one another if the shells were directly coupled to one another.
Regarding claim 20:
Morgan teaches The helmet of claim 19, as set forth above.
The modified Morgan further meets the limitation wherein the intermediate isolator shell 402’ and the intermediate damping shell 802 are indirectly coupled to each other through the intermediate isolator shell 402’ being coupled to (Fig. 8B) the outer shell 401’ and the intermediate damping shell 802 being coupled to (Fig. 8B) the inner shell 802a, the outer shell 401’ being coupled to (Fig. 8B) the inner shell 802a via the plurality of shocks 700.
Regarding claim 24:
Morgan teaches The helmet of claim 19, as set forth above. Morgan further discloses wherein each of the plurality of shocks 700 includes a spring 702 (“702...spring”; para 113) and a body 701 disposed between the first end and the second end (Figs. 7A-7B).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Yu, US 9,936,756, previously cited] in view of [Rowson, NPL 2019].
Regarding claim 13:
Yu discloses (Figs. 1-5):
An impact detection system (the system shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a helmet (the combined 100 and 110) configured to be worn by a user, the helmet including a sensor (110) including a data capture unit (210) and a wireless communication processor (the “wireless communication processor” of Fig. 2; it is noted that an errant reference numeral is provided therefore in Fig. 2; see also “wireless communication processor” at claim 1 line 7) to send information to a mobile application (Fig. 2; claim 1 lines 7-8), wherein the sensor is configured to measure kinetic characteristics applied to one or more surfaces of the helmet (sensor 110 is a “g-force sensor 210 that may detect acceleration” (col. 3 lines 23-24) such that a kinetic characteristic applied to a surface of the helmet will result in acceleration of the helmet and the sensor attached thereto such that sensor 110 is configured as claimed); and
a mobile application (“smartphone application”; col. 3 line 59; the interface thereof is shown at Figs. 3A-3B) wirelessly connected (col. 2 line 62) to the helmet, wherein the mobile application is configured to wirelessly receive information regarding the kinetic characteristics measured by the sensors (Fig. 2; claim 1 lines 7-8), and is configured to use the information received from the sensors and the baseline concussion thresholds to determine if baseline concussion thresholds are exceeded (col. 3 lines 29-30).
Although Yu discloses the mobile application configured to determine if baseline concussion thresholds are exceeded, Yu does not expressly disclose wherein the mobile application is configured to use the user's height, age, and weight to establish baseline concussion thresholds.
Nevertheless, Yu does teach the thresholds are “pre-determined” (col. 3 lines 29-30) and can be based on an algorithm (col. 3 line 34; Fig. 5) based on “data from athletes” (col. 4 line 18) such that the threshold level is adjusted based on the data (col. 4 lines 50-51).
However, Rowson teaches, and in relation to “Concussion Tolerance” (Title) in the context of “athletes” (the paragraph spanning the two columns of p. 2049) and “head protection” wherein “Helmets modify the way energy transfers to the head” (the lines spanning the two columns of p. 2054) wherein “Age is...thought to affect concussion tolerance, particularly when considering differences in brain development between adult and pediatric populations” (p. 2049, col. 1 lines 32-35) further wherein height and weight data are “used as an indirect measure of head sizes...it is assumed that a subject who is taller and heavier would have a larger head than a subject who is shorter and lighter” (p. 2050, col. 1 lines 23-25) further wherein “A smaller head will produce less strain in the brain than a larger head when experiencing identical head accelerations...For this reason, tolerance to head acceleration varies between head sizes.” (p. 2049 col. 1 lines 27-31). Accordingly, Rowson teaches height, age, and weight to be pertinent data affecting tolerance to impact upon one’s head.
It 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 to have modified the impact detection system of Yu such that its mobile application is configured to use the user's height, age, and weight to establish baseline concussion thresholds in order to render the impact detection system capable of providing alerts for potential risk for concussion based on his concussion tolerance correspondent to his age and brain development at that age and also to his tolerance based on his indirectly measured head size correspondent to his height and weight, as suggested by Rowson (p. 2049, col. 1 lines 23-25; p. 2049, col. 1 lines 27-31).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Yu, US 9,936,756, previously cited] and [Rowson, NPL 2019] as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of [Depreitere, US 2008/0066217, previously cited].
Yu in view of Rowson teach The impact detection system of claim 13, as set forth above.
Yu does not expressly disclose wherein the helmet comprises an outer shell, an intermediate isolator shell disposed within and coupled to the outer shell, an intermediate damping shell, the intermediate damping shell disposed within the intermediate isolator shell, and an inner shell disposed within the intermediate damping shell and coupled to the intermediate damping shell, wherein the sensor is coupled to the intermediate damping shell.
However, Depreitere teaches (Fig. 5) a helmet (“helmet”; para 38; no reference numeral) comprising an outer shell (a), an intermediate isolator shell (b) disposed within and coupled to the outer shell, an intermediate damping shell (c), the intermediate damping shell disposed within the intermediate isolator shell, and an inner shell (d) disposed within the intermediate damping shell and coupled to the intermediate damping shell.
(In Depreitere, each and every shell a, b, c, d, is coupled to every other shell, either directly or indirectly by being part of the same helmet structure.)
Depreitere further teaches the helmet safety is such that minimal head acceleration is observed upon certain impact forces while absorbing said forces (Abstract).
It 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 to have modified the modified Yu such that its helmet comprises an outer shell, an intermediate isolator shell disposed within and coupled to the outer shell, an intermediate damping shell, the intermediate damping shell disposed within the intermediate isolator shell, and an inner shell disposed within the intermediate damping shell and coupled to the intermediate damping shell, as in Depreitere, in order to provide helmet safety that prevents excessive head acceleration upon impact while still absorbing said impact, as suggested by Depreitere (Abstract).
In adopting the modification, one would further arrive at wherein the sensor is coupled to the intermediate damping shell as claimed insofar as the intermediate damping shell would be coupled, either directly or indirectly, to the sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732