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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the connector is a discrete component”. Such a limitation lacks detailed support in the instant specification. Also, such limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear what structural limitation applicant intends to cover since it is nowhere stated what is meant by “discrete”. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-18 depend from Claim 1 and are likewise indefinite.
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, & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salamini (US 2017/0013907).
Regarding Claim 1, Salamini discloses a connector (10/14/18/17) for connecting inner and outer layers (2, 11 or 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, 154-158), the connector being a discrete component configured to be arranged between the inner and outer layers of the apparatus (10/14/18/17, Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17), a first side of the connector being configured to attach to the inner layer (Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17) and an opposing second side of the connector being configured to attach to the outer layer (10/14/18/17, Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17),the connector comprising: a first layer (10 or 14 or 17 or 10/18) formed from at least one of a textile, a cloth, a fabric and a felt (Para. 122, 125-126), configured to be connected to one of the inner and outer layers of the apparatus (Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17); a second layer (10/18 or 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. 122, 125-126), configured to be connected to the other of the inner and outer layers of the apparatus (Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17); wherein the first and second layers are arranged adjacent each other (Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17), 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, 122, 124 & 154-158) 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, 170-187); the first and second layers are connected to each other at a peripheral region of the connector (10 or 14 or 17 or 10/18) and the sliding interface is provided in a central region of the connector surrounded by the peripheral region (10/14/18/17, Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17); and at least a portion of the first layer forms an outermost surface of the connector, configured to face the inner layer of the apparatus, when the connector is attached thereto (10/14/18/17, Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17); and/or at least a portion of the second layer forms an outermost surface of the connector, configured to face the outer layer of the apparatus, when the connector is attached thereto (10/14/18/17, Figures 1, 2, 8 , 9 , 16, 17). In one embodiment, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights