.
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
Claims 1-20, 31-35 are cancelled. Claims 28, 29 and 37 are withdrawn. Claim 21,23-27,36,39, and 40 were amended. claims 21-27, 30, 36 and 38-40 have been examined on the merits.
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) 21-27, 30,36,40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 2010/000009) in view of McGuckin, Jr. (EP 2907403). The device of Morgan teaches,
With respect to claim 21, A helmet for a wearer, the helmet comprising:
an outer helmet shell (118);
an inner panel (410), bottom side surface closest to head of the user (Figure 4);
a second inner panel (412) another of the spaced apart panels (figure 4)
a plurality of shock absorbers (130) disposed between the first inner panel (Figure 3) and the outer helmet shell (118), wherein the first inner panel (410) is nearer to the wearer than the outer helmet shell (118) when the helmet is worn by the wearer (Figure 3), the first inner panel and the outer helmet shell being configured to move toward one another when the at least two liquid-containing shock absorbers are compressed upon receiving an impact to the helmet (Figure 2), wherein each of the first inner panel and the outer helmet shell have a larger surface area than a lateral dimension (width) of the at least two shock absorbers (130), wherein the first inner panel (1410) includes a shock absorbing material (130) and is connected to the second inner panel (142), wherein the shock absorbing material occupies a greater volume of the helmet than that of the liquid-containing shock absorbers (figure 2).
The device of Morgan substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a liquid filled shock absorber.
The device of McGuckin Jr. teaches a shock absorbing element made from a liquid filled material (para 0029). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the shock absorbing liners as taught by McGuckin Jr. in order to provide adjustable impact control (para 0029).
With respect to claim 22, wherein the shock absorbing material (para 0045) of the first inner panel is a substantially rigid foam (para 045).
With respect to claim 23, wherein the second inner panel is made from the same material as the first inner surface (para 0045).
With respect to claim 24, wherein at least one additional shock (130 absorber is disposed between the second inner panel and the outer helmet shell (Figure 3). The device of Morgan substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a liquid filled portion. The device of McGuckin Jr. teaches a shock absorbing element made from a liquid filled material (para 0029). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the shock absorbing liners as taught by McGuckin Jr. in order to provide adjustable impact control (para 0029).
With respect to claim 25, wherein at least one addition shock absorber (130) is disposed between a third inner panel (414) and the outer helmet shell (128).
The device of Morgan substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a liquid filled shock absorber.
The device of McGuckin Jr. teaches a shock absorbing element made from a liquid filled material (para 0029). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the shock absorbing liners as taught by McGuckin Jr. in order to provide adjustable impact control (para 0029).
With respect to claim 26, wherein a continuous material (128) is positioned between (figure 1) the first inner panel (410) the outer helmet shell (218).
With respect to claim 27, wherein of the first (410) and second inner panels (412) move independently of each other (the panels are taught by be adjustable and replaceable therefore move in an out of the garment independently of each other, as currently required by the claim).
With respect to claim 30, wherein the at least two liquid-containing shock absorbers (130) are connected to each other (at 134).
With respect to claim 36, A helmet comprising:
an outer helmet shell(218);
a first inner surface panel (410);
a second inner surface panel (412);
a plurality of compressible (130) shock absorbers (130) disposed between the first inner surface and the outer helmet shell (Figure 3); and
a connection (friction) that couples the first inner surface to the second surface (142) the connection (friction) restricting independent movement of the first and second surfaces relative to one another (Figure 2).
The device of Morgan substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a liquid filled shock absorber.
The device of McGuckin Jr. teaches a shock absorbing element made from a liquid filled material (para 0029). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the shock absorbing liners as taught by McGuckin Jr. in order to provide adjustable impact control (para 0029).
With respect to claim 40, wherein another plurality of shock absorbers is disposed between the second inner surface and the outer helmet shell (Figure 2).
The device of Morgan substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a liquid filled shock absorber.
The device of McGuckin Jr. teaches a shock absorbing element made from a liquid filled material (para 0029). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the shock absorbing liners as taught by McGuckin Jr. in order to provide adjustable impact control (para 0029).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
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 RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights