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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,343,569 to Asare et al.
Re-claim 1, Asare et al. disclose a shock absorber apparatus comprising: a first energy absorber element, the first energy absorber element 12 is temporarily deformable below a predefined energy impact threshold level (material 12 is a low density polymeric foam); a second energy absorber element 13 (higher density foam), the second energy absorber element is not deformable below the predefined energy impact threshold and further is permanently deformable above the predefined energy impact threshold level (high density polymeric foam is permanently deformable, given a sufficient impact force); an indicator fluid 28 is present within the second energy absorber element, the indicator fluid flows into an indicator window disposed outside the second energy absorber element after deformation of the second energy absorber element (see conduit 29, figure 6). A window is broadly interpreted as an opening.
Re-claims 2 and 3, the first energy absorber element 12 is disposed in series, and in parallel with the second energy absorber element 13, see figure 5.
Re-claim 5, the indicator indicates to a user that the second energy absorber element has become permanently deformed when the second energy absorber element becomes permanently deformed, such as when experiencing a sufficient impact event.
Re-claim 8, the second energy absorbing element 13 is made from a higher density polymeric foam, which can have a permanent deformation profile and thus interpreted as ductile. A relatively stiff polymeric foam will break or damage under sufficient impact.
Re-claim 19, Asare et al. disclose a method of using a shock absorber apparatus on an article (such as a helmet), the method comprising the steps of: providing an article 11; providing a shock absorber apparatus on the article, the shock absorber apparatus comprising a first energy absorber element 12, the first energy absorber element is temporarily deformable below a predefined energy impact threshold level, and a second energy absorber element 13, the second energy absorber element is not deformable below the predefined energy impact threshold (the low density foam absorbs energy during low impact events, whereas the high density foam is not affected) and further is permanently deformable above the predefined energy impact threshold level (high density polymeric foam is permanently deformable, given a sufficient impact force), the shock absorber apparatus further comprising an indicator fluid 28 present within the second energy absorber element; and impacting the energy absorbing apparatus with a first energy, wherein the first energy causes the first energy absorber element to temporarily deform and does not cause the second energy absorber element to deform; and impacting the energy absorbing apparatus with a second energy greater than the first energy, wherein the second energy causes the second energy absorber element to permanently deform and cause the indicator fluid to flow outside of the second energy absorber element into an indicator window. A sufficient second energy impact event will cause capsule 28 to break, thus indicate a high energy impact event.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asare et al. in view of US 3,946,441 to Johnson.
Asare et al. fail to teach the use of a viscoelastic material as an energy absorbing element, specifically for the first energy absorbing element.
Johnson teaches the use of a viscoelastic material as an energy absorbing element, see column 3 lines 56-64. This is a common material used as an energy absorbing element, as the material is easy to manipulate and form into shapes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a viscoelastic material for the first energy absorbing element of Asare et al. as suggested by Johnson, thus providing a common material used in shock absorbing elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13, 17 and 18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to show a second energy absorbing element formed as a single monolith energy absorber having a first segment, second segment and a third segment, each deformable at a predefined energy level, with an indicator fluid present within the second energy absorbing element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8 and 19 have been 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.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
January 5, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616