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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 15, 17-23, 26-29, 35 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0315308 (Morello) in view of US 2020/0237044 (Walterspiel).
Regarding claims 1 and 29, ‘308 discloses: helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure (2; helmet, figs. 5 & 5a- 5c), the impact mitigating structure comprising: a first layer (31; fig. 5c); and a second layer (21; fig. 5c); wherein one or more of a material property, a mechanical property and a geometrical property of the impact mitigating structure is arranged to, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, facilitate at least partial fracturing of the second layer such that at least a portion of the second layer is able to move relative to the first layer (fig. 5b; shows fracture of second layer relative the first layer that is inherently due to material, mechanical and geometrical properties of the structure shown in fig. 5b).
Regarding limitations in claim 1 taken from original claim 29; ‘308 teaches the limitations above and does teach intermediate impact mitigating structures at 61 and 51 that function to facilitate relative movement between layers 21 and 31 as previously stated above but does not teach these impact mitigating elements as spherical rolling elements of a hard and stiff material such that the rolling elements maintain their shape when the impact mitigating structure is subject to the impact. Claim 29 is presented in an alternative list of limitations, as long as one of the list is disclosed, claim 29 is disclosed. Here the rolling elements are spherical discloses the alternative list in claim 29.
However, ‘044 does explicitly teach spheres (200) disclosed as free to roll in all directions and that are spherical.
‘044 also teaches the spheres are used in helmets between layers to enhance energy dissipation during an impact.
Even further, ‘044 teaches explicitly:
“Helmets typically include a rigid outer shell formed of hard plastic and interior padding of various forms, including specially designed multiple studs in football helmets, formed of vinyl, foam, polypropylene, or similar material that is suited to absorb energy mechanically by being compressed and/or bending [par. 4].”;
“All the illustrated embodiments in these figures include a shell that defines one or more holes, apertures or openings (which terms may be used synonymously herein), for influencing the compressible balls' ability to deform, thus improving the helmet's ability to dampen and disperse direct as well as angular accelerations. The holes are configured to facilitate elastic deformation upon impact, while still providing the compressible balls with sufficient rigidity to roll within a cavity 114, 116a, 116b of a helmet 100, 120, 130, 140, 150..[par 48]”;
“Upon impact, some of the balls 200 may detach from the outer shell 102 and roll or move laterally, which may facilitate or enhance shock absorption [par. 42]”;
and
“the compressible balls 500 may be covered with a covering (not shown), such as a fabric, leather, plastic or the like. The covering may also act as a holder for the compressible balls 500. For example, in various embodiments the cover may be a meshwork fabric, a flexible membrane, a hard material, a plastic, a solid fabric, an elastic material or a shape memory material [par. 59].”.
These teachings from ‘044 explicitly teach the balls/spheres being made including an outer covering of a “hard and stiff” material and that the balls/spheres must have sufficient rigidity which is an explicit statement that the balls/spheres do at least to some extent function to maintain spherical shape to be able to roll within a cavity to facilitate and enhance impact energy dissipation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to include the rolling element impact mitigating structure having sufficient rigidity/hardness/stiffness as taught by ‘044 to be used in helmets between the impact mitigating structure layers of ‘308 to enhance energy dissipation during an impact.
Regarding claim 2, the combined prior art above teaches the limitations above but does not explicitly teach the claimed fracture load range recited in claim 2.
However, ‘308 explicitly teaches, “To optimize the absorption capacity of the shock energy of the protective helmet 2, the coating shell 21 is further sized so as to have a breaking load lower than that of the outer shell 11. In such way, it is possible to obtain a better energy dissipation in the event of an impact, without affecting the outer shell 11 (par. 0097).”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to vary the breaking load of the layer 21 so as to optimize the absorption capacity to obtain better energy dissipation in an impact event without affecting the remaining elements of the helmet.
Regarding claim 5, ‘308 discloses: the first layer and/or the second layer comprises one or more protrusions (notches 61) arranged to facilitate at least partial fracturing of the second layer when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact (shown clearly in fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 6, ‘308 discloses: the impact mitigating structure comprises one or more fracture initiating members adjacent the second layer (notches 61), wherein the one or more fracture initiating members are arranged to facilitate at least partial fracturing of the second layer when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact (shown clearly in fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 7, ‘308 discloses: the second layer is shaped to form one or more points and/or lines of weakness in the second layer (notches 61), wherein the one or more points and/or lines of weakness are arranged to facilitate at least partial fracturing of the second layer (shown clearly in fig. 5b), and wherein the second layer comprises a plurality of points and/or lines of weakness (notches 61 and lines as shown in fig. 5 ) and the second layer is arranged to at least partially fracture at at least one of the plurality of points and/or lines of weakness or between at least two of the plurality of points and/or lines of weakness (shown clearly in fig. 5b), and wherein the one or more points and/or lines of weakness are defined by material properties of the second layer, or wherein the one or more points and/or lines of weakness are defined by geometrical properties of the second layer (notches 61 and lines as shown in fig. 5; inherently formed by “geometrical properties”), wherein optionally the thickness of the second layer at the one or more points and/or lines of weakness is less than the thickness of the surrounding regions of the second layer, and/or wherein the one or more points and/or lines of weakness comprise one or more indentations, voids, grooves, slots and/or apertures in the second layer.
Regarding claim 15, ‘308 discloses: the first layer and/or the second layer comprises one or more protrusions and/or the impact mitigating structure comprises one or more fracture initiating members adjacent the second layer and/or the second layer comprises one or more points and/or lines of weakness, wherein the one or more protrusions, the one or more fracture initiating members and/or the one or more points and/or lines of weakness are arranged to define one or more segments of the second layer (notches 61 and lines as shown in fig. 5 ), and wherein the second layer comprises between 3 and 1000 segments (fig. 5b shows only one small section of the helmet and shows 3 segments while it is clear that the whole of the helmet will have even more than 3 segments and less than 1000 segments as in fig. 5 clearly within the claimed range of between 3 and 1000) , e.g. between 50 and 500 segments, e.g. between 75 and 300 segments, e.g. between 100 and 150 segments.
Regarding claim 17, ‘308 discloses: the segments extend over the entirety of the second layer (shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, ‘308 discloses: the segments are arranged relative to the geometrical features of the helmet (shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, ‘308 discloses: the segments are arranged to surround one or more vents in the helmet (shown in fig. 5; face opening can be considered to be vent when visor is moved/opened).
Regarding claim 20, ‘308 discloses: the second layer is arranged to fracture, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, to facilitate at least partial detachment of at one or more segments from the second layer (shown in fig. 5b; fractured notches).
Regarding claim 21, ‘308 discloses: the one or more at least partially detached segments are arranged to, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact from an object, facilitate movement of the second layer with respect to the impacting object (shown in fig. 5b; fractured notches do ‘facilitate movement of second layer’ forming ‘detached segments’).
Regarding claim 22, ‘308 discloses: the one or more at least partially detached segments are arranged to, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, be freed from the impact mitigating structure (shown in fig. 5b; fractured notches do ‘facilitate movement of second layer’ forming ‘detached segments’ that can be ‘freed’ from the structure shown).
Regarding claim 23, ‘308 discloses: the second layer is arranged to, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, bend between the partially detached segment and the second layer (shown in fig. 5b; fractured notches do ‘facilitate movement of second layer’ forming ‘detached segments’ that can be ‘freed’ from the structure shown that will inherently ‘bend’/deform under load that is less than breaking load).
Regarding claim 26, ‘308 discloses: the second layer (21, fig. 5b) forms an outer shell that is non-congruent with respect to the first layer (notches formed in 21 are not found in first layer), wherein when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, the outer shell is configured to fracture such that at least a portion of the outer shell is able to move relative to the first layer (see annotated fig. 5b and 5c below movement after fracture is of second layer relative to the first layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
337
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, ‘308 discloses: the outer shell, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, is configured to flatten to facilitate relative movement of the outer shell with respect to the first layer (see fig. 5b; fracture notches and fractures at 51 do function to facilitate a ‘flattening’ or a thinner thickness dimension from relative movement of 21 to 31).
Regarding claim 28, ‘308 discloses: the second layer (21, 5c) is integrally formed with the first layer (shown in fig. 5c), the first layer forming an energy absorbing layer or a part of an energy absorbing layer (seen clearly in fig. 5c; 31 and 81 is an energy absorbing layer).
Regarding claim 35, ‘308 discloses: the impact mitigating structure comprises a fracturing mechanism that is configured to resist a relative movement between the second layer and the first layer (seen clearly in fig. 5c; prior to a load above breaking load the structure shown does function to resist claimed relative movement between first and second layers), and/or wherein the fracturing mechanism is configured to create a geometric locking or a mechanical locking between layers, and/or wherein the fracturing mechanism is configured to increase a resistance of rolling of the rolling elements (remaining alternative/“or” limitations are not required to disclose claim 35).
Regarding claim 38, ‘308 discloses: helmet comprising an impact mitigating structure (2; helmet, figs. 5 & 5a- 5c), the impact mitigating structure comprising: a first layer (31; fig. 5c); and a second layer (21; fig. 5c); wherein one or more of a material property, a mechanical property and a geometrical property of the impact mitigating structure is arranged to, when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact, facilitate at least partial fracturing of the second layer such that at least a portion of the second layer is able to move relative to the first layer (fig. 5b; shows fracture of second layer relative the first layer that is inherently due to material, mechanical and geometrical properties of the structure shown in fig. 5b).
Regarding newly incorporated limitations in claim 38 taken from original claims 1 and 29; ‘308 teaches the limitations above and does teach impact mitigating structures that function to facilitate relative movement between layers 21 and 31 as previously stated above but does not teach these elements as spherical rolling elements of a compressible, hard and stiff material forming fracture initiating members arranged to concentrate stress on the second layer, from the force of an impact, to cause at least partial fracturing of the second layer when the impact mitigating structure is subject to an impact.
However, ‘044 does explicitly teach spheres (200) disclosed as compressible, free to roll in all directions and that are spherical.
‘044 also teaches the spheres are used in helmets between layers to enhance energy dissipation during an impact.
Even further, ‘044 teaches explicitly:
“Helmets typically include a rigid outer shell formed of hard plastic and interior padding of various forms, including specially designed multiple studs in football helmets, formed of vinyl, foam, polypropylene, or similar material that is suited to absorb energy mechanically by being compressed and/or bending [par. 4].”;
“All the illustrated embodiments in these figures include a shell that defines one or more holes, apertures or openings (which terms may be used synonymously herein), for influencing the compressible balls' ability to deform, thus improving the helmet's ability to dampen and disperse direct as well as angular accelerations. The holes are configured to facilitate elastic deformation upon impact, while still providing the compressible balls with sufficient rigidity to roll within a cavity 114, 116a, 116b of a helmet 100, 120, 130, 140, 150..[par 48]”;
“Upon impact, some of the balls 200 may detach from the outer shell 102 and roll or move laterally, which may facilitate or enhance shock absorption [par. 42]”;
and
“the compressible balls 500 may be covered with a covering (not shown), such as a fabric, leather, plastic or the like. The covering may also act as a holder for the compressible balls 500. For example, in various embodiments the cover may be a meshwork fabric, a flexible membrane, a hard material, a plastic, a solid fabric, an elastic material or a shape memory material [par. 59].”.
These teachings from ‘044 explicitly teach the compressible balls/spheres being made of a “hard and stiff” outer covering material and that the balls/spheres must have sufficient rigidity to roll within a cavity to facilitate and enhance impact energy dissipation.
Instantly, the balls/spheres in the prior art are explicitly shown to be compressible and to have a hard/rigid outer covering to retain enough rigidity to perform a rolling function to add to a helmets impact energy dissipation upon impact.
Further, the modification/combined teachings inherently result in rolling elements that are sandwiched in-between the first and second layers and inherently any impact stress on the helmet and its layers in the direction towards either of the first or second layer would provide stress on the rolling elements that inherently would “concentrate that stress on the first and/or second layer to cause at least partial fracturing of the first and/or second layer” depending on the direction of impact energy.
New amendments are functional limitations, to “concentrate stress” and to “cause fracturing” are functional limitations. These new functional limitations are fully addressed in the rejection as noted above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to include the rolling elements having sufficient rigidity/hardness/stiffness that allows the balls/spheres to compress and roll as taught by ‘044 to be used in helmets between impact mitigating layers of a helmet to enhance energy dissipation during an impact.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Assertion that the rolling spherical elements of ‘044 are not “hard and stiff” is incorrect.
‘044 explicitly states, “the compressible balls 500 may be covered with a covering (not shown), such as a fabric, leather, plastic or the like. The covering may also act as a holder for the compressible balls 500. For example, in various embodiments the cover may be a meshwork fabric, a flexible membrane, a hard material, a plastic, a solid fabric, an elastic material or a shape memory material [par. 59].”; this citation alone states the balls as covered with a hard, plastic material clearly refuting any position that the spherical elements of ‘044 are not “hard and stiff”. For further evidence, the examiner points to applicants own current remarks which state:
“The rolling elements can only perform this function if they maintain their shape under impact.”.
In a similar recitation, ‘044 explicitly states, “, while still providing the compressible balls with sufficient rigidity to roll within a cavity 114, 116a, 116b of a helmet 100, 120, 130, 140, 150..[par 48]”.
This shows unequivocally that the hard plastic covered spherical elements of ‘044 are, in fact, at least somewhat capable of ‘shape retention upon impact’ or else the stated rolling would not be possible as stated in the ‘044 document and as stated by the applicant in current remarks.
The applicant focuses only on the fact the balls are taught as compressible but completely overlooks the explicit recitations of a hard outer covering that must have sufficient rigidity to roll. Assertions that the ball itself is not ‘hard’ and the covering is not part of the ball is incorrect. The hard covering of ‘044 is a part of the ball just as much as the hard membrane covering of the instant application’s balls are part of the instant applicant’s balls. The statement that something that is compressible cannot be hard and stiff is incorrect. Metal sheets are hard and stiff and are also compressible. One does not preclude or exclude the other as applicant asserts. Hardness and stiffness are terms of degree and without any point of reference to determine the levels of hardness or stiffness, any level of hardness or stiffness discloses the terms ‘hard’ and ‘stiff’.
Assertions regarding claim 38 flow from the assertions regarding the rolling elements being “hard and stiff”.
Assertions regarding new ‘stress concentration’ limitations are incorrect. As noted above the rolling elements are covered with hard plastic and have sufficient rigidity to roll.
The modification/combined teachings result in hard and rigid/rolling elements that are sandwiched in-between the first and second impact mitigating layers and inherently any impact stress on the helmet and its layers in the direction towards the second layer would provide stress on the rolling elements that inherently would “concentrate that stress on the second layer to cause at least partial fracturing of the second layer” as newly claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
312
887
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These amendments are, in fact, functional limitations, to “concentrate stress” and to “cause fracturing” are functional limitations. These new functional limitations are fully addressed in the rejection as noted above.
They are not mutually exclusive mechanical behaviors as asserted in instant remarks.
The sandwiched spheres would experience and pass on/concentrate any impact stress from layer to layer and would inherently at least partially cause fracture of the impact mitigating fracturing layers of the combined helmet structure formed by the combined teachings above.
These are the arguments and amendments provided.
The rejection is considered to be proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Various helmet and impact mitigating fracturing structures have been attached to previous PTO-892 documents to establish the general state of the prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights