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 amendment filed on 10/24/2025 has been received; Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, & 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salamini (US 2017/0013907).
Regarding Claim 1, Salamini discloses a connector (10) for connecting inner and outer layers (12, 13, Figures 8-9) of an apparatus (Figures 1 & 2), the inner and outer layers configured to slide relative to each other in response to an impact to the apparatus (Para. 124), the connector comprising: a first layer (14) formed from at least one of a textile, a cloth, a fabric and a felt (Para. 125-126), configured to be connected to one of the inner and outer layers of the apparatus (Figures 8-9); a second layer (14, Para. 124-128 “at least one inner layer 14” which means there can be more than one), formed from at least one of a textile, a cloth, a fabric and a felt (Para. 125-126), configured to be connected to the other of the inner and outer layers of the apparatus (Figures 8-9); wherein the first and second layers are arranged adjacent each other (Figures 8-9), extending in respective parallel planes so as to form a sliding interface therebetween in a plane substantially parallel to each of the first and second layers, and the first and second layers are configured to slide against each other at the sliding interface so as to allow the first and second layers to move relative to each other (Para. 94-100 & 124) and thus allow the inner and outer layers of the apparatus to slide relative to each other in response to an oblique impact (Para. 20-22, “forces acting on the head”, Para. 124). Salamini does not specifically teach two layers, however Salamini says more than one layer can be present. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the layers of Salamini having at least two layers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 2, Salamini discloses a first connecting means connected to the first layer (Figures 1 & 2) and configured to attach to one of the two layers of the apparatus (Para. 181), wherein the first connecting means is connected to the first layer at a location opposite the sliding interface (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Salamini discloses the first connecting means comprises a hook-and-loop material (Para. 202, 206, Figure 19).
Regarding Claim 5, Salamini discloses a second connecting means connected to the second layer (Figures 1 & 2)and configured to connect to the other of the two layers of the apparatus (Para. 181), wherein the second connecting means is connected to the second layer at a location opposite the sliding interface (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Salamini discloses the second connecting means comprises double-sided adhesive tape (Para. 202-203 & 206).
Regarding Claim 8, Salamini discloses the first and second layers are arranged such that a grain direction of the first layer and a grain direction of the second layer are non-parallel (Figures 1, 2 10 & 11).
Regarding Claim 9, Salamini discloses the grain direction of the first layer and the grain direction of the second layer are angled between 45 degrees and 90 degrees relative to each other (Figures 1, 2 10 & 11), wherein the grain direction of the first layer and the grain direction of the second layer are substantially perpendicular to each other (Figures 1, 2 10 & 11).
Regarding Claim 11, Salamini does not specifically disclose the first and second layers are each formed from a tricot fabric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the layers as claimed, since it is well 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. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using tricot fabric would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Therefore, as modified, the tricot fabrics forming the first and second layers can comprise a shiny side and an dull side, the shiny sides of the tricot fabrics are arranged face-to-face the sliding interface, and the tricot fabrics are oriented such that the machine directions of manufacture of the tricot fabrics are arranged to be perpendicular to each other.
Regarding Claim 13, Salamini discloses the first and second layers are connected to each other at a region of the connector surrounding the sliding interface (Figures 1 & 2, Para. 94-100), wherein the first and second layers are connected to each other at a peripheral region of the connector and the sliding interface is provided in a central region of the connector (Figures 1 & 2, Para. 94-100).
Regarding Claim 15, Salamini discloses the first and second layers are connected by an adhesive layer (Para. 202-203 & 206).
Regarding Claim 16, Salamini discloses the adhesive layer is formed from a hot- melt adhesive (Para. 202-203 & 206).
Regarding Claim 17, Salamini discloses the connector is substantially circular in shape (Figures 1, 2, 10, 11 & 19).
Regarding Claim 18, Salamini does not specifically disclose the connector has a diameter of less than 50mm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of diameter for the connector in order to achieve an optimal configuration for connecting, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the diameter involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 19, Salamini discloses an apparatus comprising: an inner layer (12); an outer layer (13); and a connector (10) connected the inner and outer layers; wherein the inner and outer layers are configured to slide relative to each other in response to an impact to the apparatus (Para. 124); and the connector comprises: a first layer (14), formed from at least one of a textile, a cloth, a fabric and a felt (Para. 125-126), configured to be connected to one of the inner and outer layers of the apparatus (Figures 8-9); a second layer (14, Para. 124-128 “at least one inner layer 14” which means there can be more than one), formed from at least one of a textile, a cloth, a fabric and a felt (Para.143-146) configured to be connected to the other of the inner and outer layers (Figures 8-9); wherein the first and second layers are arranged adjacent each other (Figures 8-9), extending in respective parallel planes so as to form a sliding interface therebetween in a plane substantially parallel to each of the first and second layers, and the first and second layers are configured to slide against each other at the sliding interface so as to allow the first and second layers to move relative to each other (Para. 94-100 & 124) and thus allow the inner and outer layers of the apparatus to slide relative to each other in response to an oblique impact (Para. 20-22, “forces acting on the head”, Para. 124). Salamini does not specifically teach two layers, however Salamini says more than one layer can be present. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the layers of Salamini having at least two layers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 20, Salamini discloses the connector comprising a first connecting means connected to the first layer of the connector and outer layer of the apparatus (Figures 1, 2, 4-7), wherein the first connecting means comprises a hook-and-loop material (Para. 202-203 & 206).
Regarding Claim 21, Salamini discloses the connector comprising a second connecting means connected to the second layer of the connector and the inner layer of the apparatus (Figures 1, 2, 4-7), wherein the second connecting means comprises double-sided adhesive tape (Para. 202-203 & 206).
Regarding Claim 22, Salamini discloses the apparatus is a helmet (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Salamini discloses the outer layer is an energy absorbing layer and the inner layer is a head mount configured to mount the helmet on a wearer's head (Figures 1 & 2), wherein the head mount comprises comfort padding (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 24, Salamini discloses the outer layer is a low friction layer located radially inward of an energy absorbing layer of the helmet (Para. 103, 116, 120, 122, 126) and the inner layer is a head mount configured to mount the helmet on a wearer's head (Figures 1 & 2) wherein the head mount comprises comfort padding (Figures 1 & 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks: Applicant asserts there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in Salamini to provide a second layer as well as no reason to modify under obviousness. Furthermore, the rejection is hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Salamini mentions “at least one inner layer 14”; therefore it is understood more than one can be present. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972).The law does not require that references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor as long as some motivation or suggestion to combine them is provided by the prior art taken as a whole. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
It is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732