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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on 03/10/2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 29 have been amended; claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, and 31 are canceled; and claim 32 has been added. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29, 30, and 32 are pending in this application. Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 12/10/2025, are hereby withdrawn: the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Applicant's arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the updated ground of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “adjustment mechanism” in claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,116,490 A to Zbikowski in view of US 6,381,760 B1 to Lampe, US 3,107,356 A to Pestronk; and US 2021/0330018 A1 to Yarlagadda.
For claim 1, Zbikowski discloses a cap (14) for use with protective headgear (col. 1, lines 53-61), comprising: a stiff shell forming a layer that covers an internal surface area defined by the cap (col. 1, lines 53-61) and formed from a single section (see fig. 1), wherein the cap is devoid of compressible material more inward than the stiff shell, relative to the wearer's head, when the cap is worn by the wearer (see figs. 1-3); the shape of the stiff shell is a hemisphere (fig. 1), the stiff shell configured to extend continuously around the circumference of the wearer's head (see fig. 1).
Zbikowski does not specifically disclose the cap comprises: an adjustment mechanism, configured to adjust a form of the stiff shell to conform to an individual wearer's head, in a first operation mode, and configured to fix the form of the stiff shell, in a second operation mode; wherein the cap is configured such that the stiff shell retains the form as fixed by the adjustment mechanism when the cap is worn by a wearer in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during an impact, the stiff shell being at least 1 mm thick, and the material forming the section of the stiff shell having a Young's Modulus of at least 1 GPa; and the stiff shell comprises an opening extending from an edge to a crown portion of the stiff shell to enable adjustability, the stiff shell configured to extend from a first side of the opening to a second side of the opening.
However, attention is directed to Lampe teaching a similar non-suspension headgear with an expansion gap (31) in the rear of the headguard with an adjustment strap (32) spanning the gap (31) and through an eyelet to adjust the fit and size of the strap and the fit of the headguard (col. 6, lines 44-48 and fig. 17a of Lampe).
PNG
media_image1.png
685
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Zbikowski would be further modified to comprise an adjustment mechanism in the form of an adjustment strap spanning a gap and through an eyelet to adjust the fit and size of the strap and the fit of the headguard; and configured to adjust a form of the stiff shell to conform to an individual wearer's head, in a first operation mode, and configured to fix the form of the stiff shell, in a second operation mode and wherein the stiff shell comprises an opening extending from an edge and towards a crown portion of the stiff shell to enable adjustability, the stiff shell configured to extend from a first side of the opening to a second side of the opening, as taught by Lampe, for purposes of adjusting the fit and size of the headgear (col. 6, lines 44-48 of Lampe).
As modified, Zbikowski does not disclose wherein the cap is configured such that the stiff shell retains the form as fixed by the adjustment mechanism when the cap is worn by a wearer in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during an impact, the stiff shell being at least 1 mm thick, and the material forming the section of the stiff shell having a Young's Modulus of at least 1 GPa; and wherein the opening extends to a crown portion.
However, attention is directed to Pestronk teaching an analogous adaptable headgear (col. 1, lines 28-31 of Pestronk) and wherein an adjustment opening (35) extends to the crown portion of the helmet to further enhance the expansibility of the headgear (col. 3, lines 25-31 and fig. 7 of Pestronk).
PNG
media_image2.png
309
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Zbikowski would be further modified wherein the opening extends to a crown portion for purposes of further enhancing the expansibility of the headgear, as taught by Pestronk (col. 3, lines 25-31 and fig. 7 of Pestronk).
As modified Zbikowski does not specficially disclose wherein the cap is configured such that the stiff shell retains the form as fixed by the adjustment mechanism when the cap is worn by a wearer in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during an impact, the stiff shell being at least 1 mm thick, and the material forming the section of the stiff shell having a Young's Modulus of at least 1 GPa;
However, Zbikowski does teach the liner is (14) is made of a semi-flexible thermoplastic material of about 0.030 inch wall thickness (col. 1, lines 58-61).
Attention is also directed to Yarlagadda teaching an analogous stiff inner shell (inner ring 300) forming the innermost components of a protective shell (10) and configured for also receiving at least a portion of a user’s head (para 0023 of Yarlagadda). Specifically, Yarlagadda teaches the inner ring (300) is made of polycarbonate lexan 214 R having a Young’s modulus of 2,340 MPa (para 0084 of Yarlagadda) and a wall thickness of 3 mm (0.118 inches) (para 0085 of Yarlagadda) for purposes of providing safe and adequate transmission of force received from external objects (para 0024 of Yarlagadda). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Zbikowski is further modified wherein the material is polycarbonate lexan 214 R having a wall thickness of 3 mm and an Young’s modulus of 2,340 MPa for purposes of providing safe and adequate transmission of force received from external objects, as taught by Yarlagadda (paras 0024, 0084, and 0085 of Yarlagadda).
It is further noted that claim limitations including, but not limited to: “wherein the cap is configured such that the stiff shell retains the form as fixed by the adjustment mechanism when the cap is worn by a wearer in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during an impact” has been fully considered and is being interpreted as statements of intended use. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114(II)). Examiner notes italicized limitations in the prior art rejection are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform. Since the modified Zbikowski teaches claimed structure and material properties of the headgear, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the modified Zbikowski is fully capable of retaining its form in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during impact.
For claim 2, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein the stiff shell forms an internal surface of the cap configured to be arranged to face the wearer's head when the cap is worn by the wearer, and is configured to directly contact the wearer's head (see fig. 1).
For claim 4, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism is configured to be able to adjust the form of the stiff shell (see discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe) wherein the form of the stiff shell is adjusted such that an average gap size between the stiff shell and a standard head form is no more than 2mm, across a circumferential part of the stiff shell or the entire stiff shell or across an entirety of the stiff shell (Although not explicitly disclosed by the modified Zbikowski, the entire recitation is considered a functional recitation because it is describing the function of adjusting the adjustment mechanism around a “standard head form,” which is not considered a part of the of the cap. Moreover, since the modified Zbikowski teaches all structural limitations of the claim, including a stiff cap made of a rigid polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1), and already allows for gap adjustment around the wearer’s head (see discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe), one skilled in the art would find the modified Zbikowski headgear is both inherently capable and expected to perform the claimed function. The manner in which the cap is intended to be configured around a standard head form does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the modified Zbikowski apparatus, See MPEP 2114(II)).
For claim 6, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein a stiffness of a system formed by the stiff shell, the adjustment mechanism, in the second operation mode, and a standard head form, is such that, during an impact, an average gap size between the stiff shell and the standard head form increases by no more than 2mm, across a circumferential part of the stiff shell or the entire stiff shell or across an entirety of the stiff shell (Although not explicitly disclosed by the modified Zbikowski, the entire recitation is considered a functional recitation because it is describing the function of the stiffness of the cap around a “standard head form,” which is not considered a part of the of the cap. Moreover, since the modified Zbikowski teaches all structural limitations of the claim, including a stiff cap made of a rigid polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1), and already allows for gap adjustment around the wearer’s head (see discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe), one skilled in the art would find the modified Zbikowski headgear is both inherently capable and expected to perform the claimed function. The manner in which the cap is intended to be configured around a standard head form does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the modified Zbikowski apparatus, See MPEP 2114(II)).
For claim 8, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein a stiffness of a system formed by the stiff shell, the adjustment mechanism, in the second operation mode, and a standard head form, is such that, during an impact, an average displacement between opposing surfaces of the stiff shell facing the standard head form, is no more than 2mm, across a circumferential part of the stiff shell or across an entirely of the stiff shell (Although not explicitly disclosed by the modified Zbikowski, the entire recitation is considered a functional recitation because it is describing the function of the stiffness of the cap around a “standard head form,” which is not considered a part of the of the cap. Moreover, since the modified Zbikowski teaches all structural limitations of the claim, including a stiff cap made of a rigid polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe), and already allows for gap adjustment around the wearer’s head, one skilled in the art would find the modified Zbikowski headgear is both inherently capable and expected to perform the claimed function. The manner in which the cap is intended to be configured around a standard head form does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the modified Zbikowski apparatus, See MPEP 2114(II)).
For claim 10, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism is configured to be able to adjust the form of the stiff shell such that a maximum gap size between the stiff shell and a standard head form is no more than 2mm, across a circumferential part of the stiff shell or across an entirety of the stiff shell (Although not explicitly disclosed by the modified Zbikowski, the entire recitation is considered a functional recitation because it is describing the function of adjusting the adjustment mechanism around a “standard head form,” which is not considered a part of the of the cap. Moreover, since the modified Zbikowski teaches all structural limitations of the claim, including a stiff cap made of a rigid polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1), and already allows for gap adjustment around the wearer’s head (see discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe), one skilled in the art would find the modified Zbikowski headgear is both inherently capable and expected to perform the claimed function. The manner in which the cap is intended to be configured around a standard head form does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the modified Zbikowski apparatus, See MPEP 2114(II)).
For claim 12, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein a stiffness of a system formed by the stiff shell, the adjustment mechanism, in the second operation mode, and a standard head form, is such that, during an impact, a maximum gap size between the stiff shell and the standard head form increases by no more than 2mm, across a circumferential part of the stiff shell or across an entirety of the stiff shell (Although not explicitly disclosed by the modified Zbikowski, the entire recitation is considered a functional recitation because it is describing the function of the stiffness of the cap around a “standard head form,” which is not considered a part of the of the cap. Moreover, since the modified Zbikowski teaches all structural limitations of the claim, including a stiff cap made of a rigid polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1), and already allows for gap adjustment around the wearer’s head (see discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe), one skilled in the art would find the modified Zbikowski headgear is both inherently capable and expected to perform the claimed function. The manner in which the cap is intended to be configured around a standard head form does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the modified Maloney apparatus, See MPEP 2114(II)).
For claim 14, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein a stiffness of a system formed by the stiff shell, the adjustment mechanism, in the second operation mode, and a standard head form, is such that, during an impact, a maximum displacement between opposing surfaces of the stiff shell facing the wearer's head, is no more than 2mm, across a circumferential part of the stiff shell or across the entirety of the stiff shell (Although not explicitly disclosed by the modified Zbikowski, the entire recitation is considered a functional recitation because it is describing the function of the stiffness of the cap around a “standard head form,” which is not considered a part of the of the cap. Moreover, since the modified Zbikowski teaches all structural limitations of the claim, including a stiff cap made of a rigid polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1), and already allows for gap adjustment around the wearer’s head (see discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe), one skilled in the art would find the modified Zbikowski headgear is both inherently capable and expected to perform the claimed function. The manner in which the cap is intended to be configured around a standard head form does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the modified Maloney apparatus, See MPEP 2114(II)).
For claim 17, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein the one or more sections forming the stiff shell are formed from polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1 above).
For claim 21, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein the stiff shell is configured to be arranged to at least cover a part of a forehead, a top of the head of the wearer, a part of a back of the head of the wearer and a part of each side of the head of the wearer, when the cap is worn by the wearer (See fig. 1 of Zbikowski).
For claim 22, the modified Zbikowski teaches the Protective headgear comprising: the cap of claim 1; and at least one protective layer covering the cap (11).
For claim 27, the modified Zbikowski teaches the headgear of claim 22, wherein: the at least one protective layer comprises an energy absorbing layer; or the at least one protective layer comprises a hard outer stiff shell (hard outer shell 11).
For claim 29, Zbikowski discloses a method of protecting a wearer of protective headgear from head injury (col. 1, lines 16-25), comprising: encasing a head of the wearer in a cap (an inherent step of using a domed shaped helmet as shown in fig. 1), the cap comprising: a stiff shell forming a layer that covers an internal surface area defined by the cap (col. 1, lines 53-61) and formed from a single section (see fig. 1), wherein the cap is devoid of compressible material more inward than the stiff shell, relative to the wearer's head, when the cap is worn by the wearer (see figs. 1-3); the shape of the stiff shell is a hemisphere (fig. 1), the stiff shell configured to extend continuously around the circumference of the wearer's head (see fig. 1).
Zbikowski does not specifically disclose the cap comprises: an adjustment mechanism, for adjusting a form of the stiff shell, in a first operation mode, and configured to fix the form of the stiff shell, in a second operation mode; and wherein the cap is configured such that the stiff shell retains the form as fixed by the adjustment mechanism, when the cap is worn by the wearer in the absence of an impact and subject to forces imparted to the cap during an impact the stiff shell being at least 1 mm thick, and the material forming the section of the stiff shell having a Young's Modulus of at least 1 GPa; and the stiff shell comprises an opening extending from an edge to a crown portion of the stiff shell to enable adjustability and configured to extend from a first side of the opening to a second side of the opening; the method comprising adjusting the form of the stiff shell to conform with the wearer's head and fixing said form.
However, attention is directed to Lampe teaching a similar non-suspension headgear with an expansion gap (31) in the rear of the headguard with an adjustment strap (32) spanning the gap (31) to adjust the fit and size of the headguard (col. 6, lines 44-48 and fig. 17a of Lampe).
PNG
media_image3.png
685
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Zbikowski would be further modified to comprise an adjustment mechanism, configured to adjust a form of the stiff shell to conform to an individual wearer's head, in a first operation mode, and configured to fix the form of the stiff shell, in a second operation mode and wherein the stiff shell comprises an opening extending from an edge and towards a crown portion of the stiff shell to enable adjustability, the stiff shell configured to extend from a first side of the opening to a second side of the opening; and the method comprising adjusting the form of the stiff shell to conform with the wearer's head and fixing said form as taught by Lampe, for purposes of adjusting the fit and size of the headgear (col. 6, lines 44-48 of Lampe).
As modified, Zbikowski does not disclose wherein the cap is configured such that the stiff shell retains the form as fixed by the adjustment mechanism when the cap is worn by a wearer in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during an impact, the stiff shell being at least 1 mm thick, and the material forming the section of the stiff shell having a Young's Modulus of at least 1 GPa; and wherein the opening extends to a crown portion.
However, attention is directed to Pestronk teaching an analogous adaptable headgear (col. 1, lines 28-31 of Pestronk) and wherein an adjustment opening (35) extends to the crown portion of the helmet to further enhance the expansibility of the headgear (col. 3, lines 25-31 and fig. 7 of Pestronk).
PNG
media_image2.png
309
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Zbikowski would be further modified wherein the opening extends to a crown portion for purposes of further enhancing the expansibility of the headgear, as taught by Pestronk (col. 3, lines 25-31 and fig. 7 of Pestronk).
As modified Zbikowski does not specifically disclose wherein the cap is configured such that the stiff shell retains the form as fixed by the adjustment mechanism when the cap is worn by a wearer in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during an impact, the stiff shell being at least 1 mm thick, and the material forming the section of the stiff shell having a Young's Modulus of at least 1 GPa;
However, Zbikowski does teach the liner is (14) is made of a semi-flexible thermoplastic material of about 0.030 inch wall thickness (col. 1, lines 58-61).
Attention is also directed to Yarlagadda teaching an analogous stiff inner shell (inner ring 300) forming the innermost components of a protective shell (10) and configured for also receiving at least a portion of a user’s head (para 0023 of Yarlagadda). Specifically, Yarlagadda teaches the inner ring (300) is made of polycarbonate lexan 214 R having a Young’s modulus of 2,340 MPa (para 0084 of Yarlagadda) and a wall thickness of 3 mm (0.118 inches) (para 0085 of Yarlagadda) for purposes of providing safe and adequate transmission of force received from external objects (para 0024 of Yarlagadda). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Zbikowski is further modified wherein the material is polycarbonate lexan 214 R having a wall thickness of 3 mm and an Young’s modulus of 2,340 MPa for purposes of providing safe and adequate transmission of force received from external objects, as taught by Yarlagadda (paras 0024, 0084, and 0085 of Yarlagadda).
It is further noted that claim limitations including, but not limited to: “wherein the cap is configured such that the stiff shell retains the form as fixed by the adjustment mechanism when the cap is worn by a wearer in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during an impact” has been fully considered and is being interpreted as statements of intended use. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114(II)). Examiner notes italicized limitations in the prior art rejection are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform. Since the modified Zbikowski teaches claimed structure and material properties of the headgear, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the modified Zbikowski is fully capable of retain its form in the absence of an impact and when subject to forces imparted to the cap during impact.
For claim 30, the modified Zbikowski teaches the method of claim 29, wherein the form of the stiff shell is adjusted (see discussion for claim 29 above) such that an average gap size between the stiff shell and the wearer's head, when the cap is worn by the wearer in the absence of an impact, is no more than 2mm (Although not explicitly disclosed by the modified Zbikowski, the entire recitation is considered a functional recitation because it is describing the function of adjusting the form of the cap around a “wearer’s head.” Since the modified Zbikowski teaches all structural limitations of the claim, including a stiff cap made of a rigid polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1), and already allows for gap around the wearer’s head (see discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe), one skilled in the art would find the modified Zbikowski helmet harness is both inherently capable and expected to perform the claimed adjusting function. The manner in which the cap is intended to be configured around a standard head form does not differentiate the claimed apparatus in the method from the modified Zbikowski apparatus, See MPEP 2114(II)).
For claim 32, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises: a strap configured to span the opening; and a connector positioned on the first or second side of the opening, with the connector configured to engage the strap at a plurality of locations along the length of the strap to adjust the size of the opening (See discussion for claim 1 above and teachings of Lampe wherein the eyelet is considered a connector for connecting to the adjustment strap at different strap locations).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zbikowski in view of Lampe, Pestronk; and Yarlagadda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0297984 A1 to Krynock.
For claim 19, the modified Zbikowski teaches the cap of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein a surface of the cap configured to be arranged to face away from the wearer's head, when the cap is worn by the wearer, is a low friction surface; wherein, the low friction surface is provided by the material properties of the section forming the stiff shell.
However, the modified Zbikowski does teach the cap material is polycarbonate (see discussion for claim 1 above). Attention is also directed to Krynock teaching a s[m]ooth polycarbonate surface achieves low-friction surface (para 0017 of Krynock) which provides a slipping effect against impacts on the surface of the layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Zbikowski would be further modified wherein the polycarbonate is a smooth polycarbonate surface for purposes of providing a low-friction surface (para 0017 of Krynock) which provides a slipping effect against impacts on the surface of the layer.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zbikowski in view of Lampe, Pestronk; and Yarlagadda as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 2020/0253315 A1 to Maloney.
For claim 23, the modified Zbikowski teaches the protective headgear of claim 22, but does not specifically disclose wherein the cap is configured to rotate relative to the at least one protective layer under an oblique impact to the at least one protective layer; wherein the headgear further comprises at least one connector configured to connect the cap and the at least one protective layer while permitting a relative rotation.
However, attention is directed to Maloney teaching an analogous inner helmet liner in the form of a helmet harness (abstract of Maloney). Specifically, Maloney teaches the helmet harness system is also provided with an outer shell, and inner shell, and a grommet which connects the harness system to the outer shell and affords freedom of movement with respect to yaw, roll, and pitch (i.e., six degrees of freedom) (para 0136). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the modified Zbikowski would be further modified wherein the connection between the inner liner and the outer liners further comprise connectors in the form of a grommet that is configured to provide rotation to the at least one protective layer under an oblique impact and for purposes of providing freedom of movement with respect to yaw, roll, and pitch (i.e., six degrees of freedom) between the harness system and the outer shell, as taught by Maloney (para 0136).
For claim 25, the modified Zbikowski teaches the headgear of claim 23, wherein: a sliding interface is provided between the cap and the at least one protective layer or a shearing interface is provided between the cap and the at least one protective layer (see discussion for claim 23 wherein the grommet provides the helmet harness with freedom of movement with respect to yaw, roll, and pitch (i.e., six degrees of freedom)).
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK I LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at (571) 272-4888. 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.
/ERICK I LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights