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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 03 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 5 recites the term “nearly cylindrical” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearly cylindrical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted such that a “nearly cylindrical” shape is a shape having a circular top surface and base that are different in size as supported by the instant specification Par. 0103.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the base of the hollow members" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is thus unclear what is being referred to as “the base.” For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as instead reciting “the a base of the hollow members” as supported by the instant specification Par. 0020-0022.
Claim 9 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson (US 20150047110 A1) in view of Xiao et al. (US 20220169812 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chilson teaches a head protective gear comprising a plurality of three-dimensional inserts made of an energy absorbing material (see shock absorbing insert), the plurality of three-dimensional inserts disposed on an interior surface of the head protective gear forming an energy absorbing layer thereon, the plurality of three dimensional inserts spatially distributed on the interior surface of the head protective gear (Chilson, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0011-0016, 0018, 0020, and Figs. 1-2).
Chilson is silent regarding the energy absorbing material being a polyurethane-based composite, the polyurethane-based composite composed of at least two components, a first component of the at least two components comprising one or more isocyanates, and one or more chain extenders; and a second component of the at least two components comprising at least one hydroxyl-terminated polyol, a catalyst, a blowing agent, a surfactant, and a polyolefin.
Xiao teaches an energy absorbing material for use in head protective gear (helmet), wherein the energy absorbing material is a polyurethane-based composite, the polyurethane-based composite composed of at least two components, a first component of the at least two components comprising one or more isocyanates, and one or more chain extenders; and a second component of the at least two components comprising at least one hydroxyl-terminated polyol, a catalyst, a blowing agent, a surfactant, and a polyolefin (see crosslinker) (Xiao, Abstract, Par. 0006, 0012-0014, 0036, 0048-0055, 0066, 0069-0070, 0087-0109, and Fig. 4).
Chilson and Xiao are analogous art as they both teach energy absorbing material for use in head protective gear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the energy absorbing material of Xiao as the energy absorbing material of Chilson. This would allow for a thermally conductive, impact absorbent material (Xiao, Par. 0012).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Chilson teaches the polyurethane-based composite is formulated to have a density of 0.45 g/cm3 and a transmission force of 7.6 kN (Xiao, Par. 0045, 0062, 0072, 0087-0109 and Fig. 4), which lie within the claimed ranges of 0.3 to 0.5 g/cm3 and equal to or lower than 30 kN respectively and therefore satisfy the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 3, modified Chilson teaches the plurality of three-dimensional inserts are configured into a plurality of hollow members (Chilson, Par. 0011-0018).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Chilson teaches the hollow members may be the same, cylindrical shape (Chilson, Par. 0011-0018).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chilson teaches the hollow members have an open end and a cavity and may be a cylindrical tube structure with an irregular geometry, and may be conical, and thus teaches the a top surface area of the hollow member is smaller than a base surface thereof (Chilson, Par. 0011-0018).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chilson teaches the hollow members have two opposing ends (Chilson, Par. 0011-0018 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Chilson teaches the base surface of the hollow members faces the interior surface of the head protective gear while the top surface of the hollow members faces a wearer’s head (Chilson, Abstract, Par. 0011-0018 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chilson teaches the hollow members are formed from energy and impact absorbing material that is deformable and thus teaches the hollow members are deformable against linear or angular velocities or accelerations resulting in one, two, or three-axis of motion exerted around the three-dimensional inserts (Chilson, Par. 0011-0018; Xiao, Par. 0012).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson in view of Xiao et al. as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of Schneider (US 20060112477 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chilson teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 3. Modified Chilson is silent regarding the interior surface of the head protective gear having a foam layer as a base layer supporting the base of the hollow members and the plurality of hollow members is disposed thereon, and wherein the foam layer has energy absorbing capability.
Schneider teaches a head protective gear comprising an interior surface that has an energy absorbing base foam layer as a base layer thereon (Schneider, Abstract, Par. 0006, and 0021-0023).
Modified Chilson and Schneider are analogous art as they both teach head protective gear. IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the foam layer of Schneider on the interior surface of the head protective gear of modified Chilson. This would allow for moisture absorbent material that absorbs energy when the head protective gear is impacted (Schneider, Par. 0021-0023). This would further result in the base layer of foam supporting the base of the hollow members and the plurality of hollow members being disposed thereon.
Regarding claim 9, modified Chilson teaches the base layer is in a bowl-shaped or hemispherical structure (Chilson, Par. 0012-0013 and Fig. 1; Schneider, Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782