826DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response of 2/17/2026 is received. Claims 1 and 16 are amended, with claims 1-3 and 5-19 pending and claims 5-15 and 17-19 are withdrawn as non-elected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: insert “and” after “connected” in line 2,
Claim 2: insert “is” after base,
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: par.95: “outer shell 2B” should be “outer shell 2A”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,685,359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-3 and 16 are encompassed by claims of the ‘359 reference as follows:Helmet comprising a shell comprising an outer shell (claim 1, lines 1-2) and an inner shock absorbing liner made of foam (claims 8 and 10) connected to each other, a head receiving system (claim 1, line 3), at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure comprising an array of energy-absorbing open-cells configured to absorb energy by deforming during an impact on the shell (claim 1, lines 4-7 and the array is equivalent to “plurality” of ‘359 and claim 2 recites “array”), at least one clamping device comprising a base and a head connected to each other via an elongated collapsible body (claim 1, lines 8-10 and the head is equivalent to the counter-base of ‘359), wherein the at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure is connected to the shell through the at least one clamping device (the clamping device collapsible body extends through one or more open cells of the cellular energy-absorbing structure); wherein the base of the at least one clamping device is attached to an inner surface of the inner shock absorbing liner (the base is connected to the head receiving system through connecting means, claim 12), wherein the base and the collapsible body are connected to each other (claim 15) and the collapsible body extends from the base through the one or more open-cells of the cellular energy-absorbing structure (claim 1, lines 10-12) and wherein the head of the at least one clamping device is configured to inwardly retain the cellular energy-absorbing structure allowing lateral relative movements of the cellular energy-absorbing structure with respect to the shell (claim 1, lines 16-23 and the head is equivalent to the counter-base).
For claim 2, claim 12 of ‘359 recites the base is attached to the inner surface of the inner shock absorbing liner through connecting means.
For claim 3, claim 13 of ‘359 recites the connecting means comprises hook and loop parts, an adhesive layer or snap-fit connector/s.
For claim 16, claim 3 of ‘359 recites each open-cell has an open base facing towards the shell and an opposite open base facing towards the head receiving system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks to the claims have been considered. This Office Action addresses all outstanding issues. There is no prior art applied against claim 1; however, the claim is not yet allowable due to the DP rejections.
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
