DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to first wall, second wall, third wall, fourth wall, fifth wall, sixth wall, first edge, second edge, etc. as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Applicant claims multiple limitations that do not have antecedent basis in the specification including: first wall, second wall, third wall, fourth wall, fifth wall, sixth wall, first edge, second edge, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 6 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.
Re claims 2 and 4, is unclear how “the second edge of the second wall is at least partially coupled to the second edge of the third wall” (claim 1) while at the same time “the second edge of the second wall is at least partially coupled to the first edge of the fourth wall” as claimed in dependent claims 2-4. Applicant has not disclosed in the specification or clearly shown in the drawings the claimed walls and edges.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "collection shape" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Figge et al. (US 4348442).
Re claim 1, Figge discloses an impact protection cell comprises: a first wall (19) having an angled shape, wherein: the angled shape includes a body impact side having a first length, an impact receiving side having a second length, a first side having a first side length, and a second side having a second side length; the body impact side is substantially parallel to the impact receiving side; the first side is at a first angle with respect to the body impact side; and the second side is at a second angle with respect to the body impact side; a second wall (19) having the angled shape; and a third wall (19) having the angled shape, wherein: a first edge of the first wall is at least partially directly coupled to a first edge of the second wall; a second edge of the first wall is at least partially directly coupled to a first edge of the third wall; a second edge of the second wall is at least partially coupled to a second edge of the third wall; and when an impact force is applied to the impact receiving sides of the first, second, and third walls, the first, second, and third walls decrease pressure on the body impact sides in comparison to pressure on the impacting receiving sides. (Fig. 2)
Re claim 5, Figge et al. disclose wherein the first, second, and third walls comprise: a material composition that includes one or more of: a rubber material, a plastic material, a carbon fiber material, a silicon material. (Column 2, 5th Par.)
Re claim 10, Figge discloses wherein the body impact side has a straight line edge; or the body impact side has a curved edge.
Re claim 11, Figge discloses wherein the impact receiving side has a straight line edge; or the impact receiving side has a curved edge.
Re claim 12, Figge discloses wherein the first angle is substantially equal to the second angle.
8. Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker (US 7574830).
Re claim 1, Baker discloses an impact protection cell comprises: a first wall having an angled shape, wherein: the angled shape includes a body impact side having a first length, an impact receiving side having a second length, a first side having a first side length, and a second side having a second side length; the body impact side is substantially parallel to the impact receiving side; the first side is at a first angle with respect to the body impact side; and the second side is at a second angle with respect to the body impact side; a second wall having the angled shape; and a third wall having the angled shape, wherein: a first edge of the first wall is at least partially directly coupled to a first edge of the second wall; a second edge of the first wall is at least partially directly coupled to a first edge of the third wall; a second edge of the second wall is at least partially coupled to a second edge of the third wall; and when an impact force is applied to the impact receiving sides of the first, second, and third walls, the first, second, and third walls decrease pressure on the body impact sides in comparison to pressure on the impacting receiving sides. (Column 2, lines 41-50, Fig. 2)
Re claim 9, Baker discloses wherein a smaller impact protection cell of the plurality of smaller impact protection cells comprises: a first smaller wall; a second smaller wall; and a third smaller wall, wherein the first, second, and third walls are at least partially coupled together to form a collective shape. (Column 2, lines 41-50, Fig. 2)
Re claim 10, Baker discloses wherein the body impact side (tetrahedron base) has a straight line edge; or the body impact side has a curved edge.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figge (US 4348442).
Re claim 6, Figge teaches wherein the first, second, and third walls form a collective shape, wherein, when an impact force is applied to the impact receiving sides of the first, second, and third walls, the collection shape holds its shape. Figge further teaches wherein the invention provides load-bearing characteristics to react fully to tensive and compressive external loads, provides high bending stiffness and a high degree of torsional rigidity in addition to multiple applications including automobile doors and roofs , bumpers which require a high resistance to impact. (Column 1, 3rd Par., Column 8, 5th Par. – Column 9, 1st Par.) However, Figge does not teach wherein the collective shapes holds its shape to within +/- 5%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date such that when an impact force is applied to the impact receiving sides of the first, second, and third walls, the collection shape holds its shape to within +/- 5% based on the desired design specifications and application.
11. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figge (US 4348442) in view of Warren (US 20100300245).
Re claim 7, Figge teaches the first, second, and third walls form a collective shape, wherein the collective shape includes a hollow volume. Figge does not teach wherein a plurality of smaller impact protection cells is located within the hollow volume. Warren teaches wherein a plurality of smaller impact protection cells (14) are located within a hollow volume (26). (Fig. 1C) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the smaller impact protection cells in the hollow volume as taught by Warren in order to provide additional impact absorption.
Re claim 8, Figge as modified teaches wherein a smaller impact protection cell of the plurality of smaller impact protection cells (14) comprises: a spherical shape. ([0047])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figge et al., Patterson, Ensrud et al., Monson et al., Pezely, Bucci, Adie, Clayton and Zetlin teach similar impact protection cells. Colvin et al. discloses an impact protection cell comprising 6 walls, impact receiving sides, body impact sides. Stebbins, Lazowski et al. and Peuker teach spherical impact protection cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached on 571-272-7124. 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTW
April 8, 2025