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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/5/25 has been entered. The amendment submitted with the RCE is entered and claims 1, 11, and 18 are amended and claims 21 and 22 are newly submitted, with claims 1-3 and 5-22 pending and claims 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 19-21 withdrawn as non-elected. Note that claim 21 is drawn to a non-elected embodiment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 16, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, please delete “comprises” and replace with “comprising” in line 4 and each recitation of “the cellular energy-absorbing structure” should recite “the at least one energy-absorbing structure” and delete “so as” and replace with “such that”.
For claim 6, “the clamping device” should be changed to recite “the at least one clamping device” for consistency with claim 1.
For claim 16, “opposite sides” should be changed to recite “opposite faces” and “the clamping device” should be changed to recite “the at least one clamping device” for consistency with the language of claim 1.
For claim 22, please delete “comprises” and replace with “comprising” in line 4 and each recitation of “the cellular energy-absorbing structure” should recite “the at least one energy-absorbing structure” and delete “so as” and replace with “such that”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: Claim 1 recites the stretchable elongated body configured to appreciably and reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled.
The use of the term Velcro, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 22 recite the stretchable elongated body configured to appreciably and reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled. The originally filed specification doesn’t provide a standard for determining the scope of “appreciably” such that it can be determined that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. Claims 1 and 22 recite the stretchable elongated body configured to appreciably and reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled. There is no standard in the specification for determining the scope of “appreciably”. To what degree must the stretchable elongated body be capable of elongation in order to be considered as “configured to appreciably elongate…with respect to its original length if pulled.”? This limitation is interpreted in claims 1 and 22 as being met by a stretchable elongated body capable of elongation.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-12, 15, and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfanner et al. (U.S. 2016/0249702) in view of Kele et al. (U.S. 2020/0323299). Pfanner discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 1, Pfanner teaches a helmet 10 comprising a shell 12 and a head receiving system 14 and at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure 18 comprises an array of energy-absorbing open-cells 24 interconnected via their sidewalls and configured to absorb energy by deforming during an impact on the shell 12 as the structure 18 forms a honeycomb-like structure with the tubes formed from copolymers and is capable of plastic deformation under impact to protect the wearer against head injuries (pars. 6 and 16). Par. 31 further discloses “Namely, the impact absorption device 18 has a plurality of cavities 20 separated from each other by walls. In the described embodiment the cavities 20 are formed as tubes 24 fixedly connected to each other.”). However, Pfanner doesn’t teach at least one clamping device comprising a base and counter-base connected to each other via a stretchable elongated body to form a single piece, wherein the stretchable elongated body is sized to pass through one open-cell of the cellular energy-absorbing structure and is configured to appreciably and reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled; and wherein when the stretchable elongated body is positioned in the one open-cell of the cellular energy-absorbing structure, the base of the clamping device lies on an outer face of the cellular energy-absorbing structure and the counter-base of the clamping device lies on an inner face of the cellular energy-absorbing structure so as the clamping device clamps only the cellular energy-absorbing structure. Kele teaches a helmet for attenuating and managing impacts, the helmet comprising at least one clamping device 10 comprising a base 140a and a counter-base 140b connected to each other via a stretchable elongated body 110 (disclosed as an elastic component in par.29) to form a single piece, wherein the stretchable elongated body 110 is configured to appreciably and reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled, and the elongated stretchable body 110 is positioned in a cavity 150 of the energy-absorbing structure and the base 140a of the clamping device lies on an outer face of the energy-absorbing structure 20,30 and the counter-base 140b lies on an inner face of the structure, so as the clamping device clamps only the cellular energy-absorbing structure. Note that Kele teaches the layers 20,30 can be interior to a shell layer of the helmet (par.23). The elastic property of the clamping device 10 allows for respective helmet liners 20,30 to move relative to one another under an impact force such that the dynamic movement of the layered helmet components can help to limit injuries as more of the impact energy is absorbed than with a conventional impact attenuating helmet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pfanner’s helmet to include the at least one clamping device comprising a base and a counter-base connected to each other via a stretchable elongated body to form a single piece, wherein the stretchable elongated body is configured to appreciably and reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled, and wherein when the stretchable elongated body is positioned in the one open-cell of the cellular energy-absorbing structure, the base of the clamping device lies on an outer face of the energy-absorbing structure and the counter-base lies on an inner face of the structure, so as the clamping device clamps only the cellular energy-absorbing structure, as Kele teaches that the clamping device allows for dynamic movement between layers of the helmet for absorption of rotational impact energy and improved protection to the wearer’s head.
For claim 2, Pfanner’s modified helmet doesn’t teach wherein the stretchable elongated body is configured to reach a maximum elongation between 150% and 500% of its original length. However, the maximum elongation of the stretchable elongated body is disclosed in Applicant’s specification as a function of the elastic or viscoelastic material and Lowe teaches the helmet layers have a degree of relative movement with respect to the shell or the wearer’s head to provide additional and beneficial energy management and the range of motion can be adjusted to a desirable amount or distance by adjusting a size, elasticity or other feature of the clamping device 87 as in col.12, lines 13-41. The maximum elongation is considered as a results effective variable as adjusting the elasticity of the clamping device to have an increased elasticity and maximum elongation at an upper end of the range is expected to result in a greater range of motion and movement between layers for improved impact absorption and a maximum elongation at a lower end of the range would provide less range of motion between the layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pfanner’s helmet such that the elongated body has a maximum elongation comprised between 150% and 500% of its original length, as it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
For claim 3, Pfanner’s modified helmet includes the stretchable elongated body at least in part made of an elastic or viscoelastic material as Lowe teaches the clamping device can be formed from rubber or elastic.
For claim 6, Pfanner’s doesn’t explicitly teach the modified helmet’s clamping device is configured so that the compressive force required to collapse the clamping device along a direction is lower than or equal to that required to deform the open-cells of the cellular energy-absorbing structure along the same direction. Applicant’s specification par.22 discloses that this limitation means that the clamping device doesn’t resist when the cellular energy-absorbing structure is compressed due to an impact load and the cellular energy-absorbing structure can be compressed as if there were no clamping device. Pfanner’s modified cellular energy-absorbing structure is disclosed as impact absorbent and the stretchable elastic elongated body would not resist a compression force since it is elastic and formed from rubber or elastic material and not disclosed as capable of providing any resistance to an impact force. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pfanner’s clamping device such that it’s configured so that the compressive force required to collapse the clamping device along a direction is lower than or equal to that required to deform the open-cells of the cellular energy-absorbing structure along the same direction as the clamping device is formed from elastic material and Pfanner’s cellular energy-absorbing structure is formed of a co-polymer that resists impact energy to some degree.
For claim 7, Pfanner’s modified helmet includes only an outer hard shell 12, and the shell is considered hard as the claim doesn’t further disclose composition of the shell.
For claim 10, Pfanner’s modified helmet includes the head receiving system 14 comprises a harness system or a comfort system as the head receiving system includes a foam material layer as part of the head receiving system 14.
For claims 11 and 12, Pfanner’s modified helmet teaches the base or counter-base is connected to the shell and/or to the head receiving system through connecting means comprising a hoop (hook) and loop connection, an adhesive layer or snap fit connector/s as Kele teaches the base 140a can snap together with a receptacle 120 associated with liner 20 and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Pfanner’s helmet in the same manner such that the base is connected to either or both of the shell and head receiving system to achieve a desired impact absorption profile.
For claim 18, Pfanner’s modified helmet with the energy-absorbing structure formed from the array of energy-absorbing open-cells interconnected via their sidewalls has an open base facing towards the shell and an opposite open base facing towards the head receiving system as the energy-absorbing structure 18 is positioned under the shell 12 and the head receiving system 14 is positioned to interface with the helmet wearer’s head such that the structure 18 is positioned therebetween.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfanner in view of Kele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lowe (U.S. 10,362,829). For claim 15, Pfanner’s modified helmet doesn’t include the clamping device comprises an exceeding portion connected to the counter-base for pulling the stretchable elongated body through the at least one open-cell. This limitation is considered as a product by process limitation as the exceeding portion is present when the clamping device is assembled to the open-cell of the cellular energy-absorbing structure and is then cut off/removed from the clamping device such that the exceeding portion is not part of the helmet product/apparatus. Lowe teaches an analagous helmet structure including an elastic clamping device that can vary in size/length such that the relative movement between respective layers is optimized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pfanner such that the clamping device comprising an exceeding portion connected to the counter-base for pulling the stretchable elongated body through the at least one open-cell such that the length and size of the clamping device can be customized during assembly of the helmet for a particular impact absorption function.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfanner in view of Kele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonin (U.S. 11,805,826). For claim 16, Pfanner’s modified helmet doesn’t explicitly teach that the cellular energy absorbing structure is longer than the original length of the stretchable elongated body of the clamping device so that the clamping device is tensioned when the counter-base and the base are disposed on opposite sides of the cellular energy-absorbing structure. Bonin teaches a helmet with elastomeric members/clamping devices 402 formed with a stretchable elongated body extending between layers 612,614 of the helmet such that the clamping device can stretch in response to a translation of one layer relative to the other layer to absorb momentum of the layer and energy of the impact to lower or eliminate the force of the impact received by the helmet wearer. At least a portion of the elastomeric members 402 is disposed under tension such that a first layer will recover to its original position relative to the second layer for a subsequent impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pfanner such that the cellular energy absorbing structure is longer than the original length of the stretchable elongated body of the clamping device so that the clamping device is tensioned when the counter-base and the base are disposed on opposite sides of the cellular energy-absorbing structure as the tensioned clamping device ensures that the respective helmet layers will return to their original positions after an impact force for protecting the wearer’s head against subsequent impacts.
Claim 22, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfanner ‘702 in view of Lowe (U.S. 10,362,829). Pfanner discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Pfanner teaches a helmet 10 comprising a shell 12 and a head receiving system 14 and at least one cellular energy-absorbing structure 18 comprises an array of energy-absorbing open-cells 24 interconnected via their sidewalls and configured to absorb energy by deforming during an impact on the shell 12 as the structure 18 forms a honeycomb-like structure with the tubes formed from copolymers and is capable of plastic deformation under impact to protect the wearer against head injuries (pars. 6 and 16). Par. 31 further discloses “Namely, the impact absorption device 18 has a plurality of cavities 20 separated from each other by walls. In the described embodiment the cavities 20 are formed as tubes 24 fixedly connected to each other.”). However, Pfanner doesn’t teach at least one clamping device comprising a base and counter-base connected to each other via a stretchable elongated body to form a single piece, wherein the stretchable elongated body is sized to pass through one open-cell of the cellular energy-absorbing structure and is configured to appreciably and reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled; and wherein when the stretchable elongated body is positioned in the one open-cell of the cellular energy-absorbing structure, the base of the clamping device lies on an outer face of the shell, and the counter-base of the clamping device lies on an inner face of the cellular energy-absorbing structure so as the clamping device clamps the cellular energy-absorbing structure and the shell together. Lowe teaches an analagous protective helmet 70 comprising a shell 74 and at least one elastic clamping device 87 comprising a base and a counter-base connected to each other via an elongated body (clamping device 87 has the shape of a capital I, see Figure 3 with 87 including the base, counter-base and elongated body extending therebetween) to form a single piece sized so as to pass through a cavity formed through helmet layers 78,82. Lowe teaches that the clamping device 87 can be held at its ends to the shell and comfort layer by adhesive or mechanical attachment and col.11 lines 66/end of column) disclose “The padding snaps 87 can couple one or more layers of the multi-layer helmet 70 to each other, to the protective shell 74, or both, by at least one of the padding snaps 87 extending through an opening, hole, or cut-out in the one or more layers of the multi-layer helmet 70”. Based on this teaching, when Lowe’s stretchable elongated body is positioned in the hole or opening of the energy-absorbing structure, the base of the clamping device is considered capable of lying on an outer face of the shell and the counter-base is considered as capable of lying on an inner face of energy-absorbing structure so as the clamping device clamps the energy-absorbing structure and the shell together, as Figure 3 shows the counter-base lying on inner face of energy-absorbing structure layer 82 and Lowe teaches the elasticity of the clamping device can be adjusted to allow a desired range of motion in col.12, lines 23-29 resulting in the base lying on an outer face of the shell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pfanner’s helmet to include the at least one clamping device comprising a base and counter-base connected to each other via a stretchable elongated body to form a single piece, wherein the stretchable elongated body is sized to pass through one open-cell of the cellular energy-absorbing structure and is configured to appreciably and reversibly elongate with respect to its original length if pulled; and wherein when the stretchable elongated body is positioned in the one open-cell of the cellular energy-absorbing structure, the base of the clamping device lies on an outer face of the shell, and the counter-base of the clamping device lies on an inner face of the cellular energy-absorbing structure so as the clamping device clamps the cellular energy-absorbing structure and the shell together, as Lowe teaches it’s known in the art to provide the claimed at least one clamping device through an opening formed in the helmet layers to allow for relative movement of the respective layers for energy management and improved energy absorption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights