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
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 12/11/2025, claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 18 are amended. Claims 5, 22 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-21 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1, 9, and 15, Applicant argues that the inclusion of the limitation “single material” or “single padding material” in the newly amended independent claims has overcome the Godshaw reference. In response, Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be arguing that the phrase “single material” or “single padding material” must be interpreted narrowly to only include a single material composition; however, the instant specification does not appear to support that narrow interpretation. The instant specification does not include any further detail beyond the phrase “single padding material” that would suggest or support that the padding sheet must be made of only one material composition, and further the instant specification does not even provide any particular examples of suitable padding materials, therefore the limitation cannot be given a narrower interpretation in light of the specification. Examiner maintains that a single padding material can be comprised of multiple constituent compositions that are combined, for example pad made of a combination of TPU and EVA foam could still be considered a single integral padding sheet made of a single (padding) material, and therefore maintains that Godshaw reads on the newly added limitations. Furthermore, because there does not appear to be support for the padding material to be a single material composition, the Examiner interprets “single material” in the same manner as “single padding material”.
Applicant further argues with respect to claim 15 that “because Godshaw does not disclose a single padding material Godshaw also does not disclose ‘wherein the central portion has a first thickness defined between an exterior surface and an interior surface of the padding sheet and the outer portion has a second thickness defined between the exterior surface and the interior surface of the padding sheet, wherein the second thickness is different than the first thickness’” (Remarks, page 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the arguments above, Examiner maintains that Godshaw does teach a single padding material. However, Examiner also submits that the particular material used does not have any bearing on the thickness of the padding sheet, and further submits that Godshaw teaches that the central portion has a different thickness than the outer portion, as shown in figure 7 of Godshaw.
Applicant’s arguments (in this case presented in regards to the alternate 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and previously presented claim 22) regarding Godshaw allegedly failing to teach the limitations “at least 80% of the perimeter length of the periphery” and “at least 10% of the perimeter length of the periphery” have already previously been addressed in prior Office actions (see pages 3-4 of Final Rejection mailed 5/19/2025 which addressed the argument that the Examiner had not given a clear explanation or analysis regarding the amount of concave/convex portions and included an annotated figure that clearly lays out evidence as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Godshaw teaches the claimed percentages based on the figure; and see pages 3-4 of Non-final Rejection mailed 9/11/2025 addressing the argument that the drawings are not to scale). Applicant has not further elaborated on the arguments, therefore Examiner maintains the position held in the prior Office actions and maintains that Godshaw reads on the limitations as claimed.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency on the independent claims; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, the independent claims are not allowable over the prior art. The dependent claims remain rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godshaw (US 2006/0041986) in view of Popowski (US 5915529).
Regarding claim 1, Godshaw discloses: A knee pad comprising: a shell (outer shell 20), the shell formed from a first material (“the outer casing or shell 20 may be manufactured from any of a number of materials including […] rigid plastic material” paragraph 37); and a single integral padding sheet (core 22 with gel material 60 form a single integral padding sheet) coupled to an interior surface of the shell such that the single integral padding sheet is positioned between the shell and the knee of the user when worn (“the hard outer casing or shell 20 is typically attached by means of snaps, for example, snaps 30, 32, 34, and 36 to the interior shaped cushion element 22” paragraph 37), the single integral padding sheet comprising: a central portion (see annotated figure 1 below) sized to interface with the knee of the user, the central portion comprising: a center (see annotated figure 1 below); and a periphery that extends around the center of the central portion and defines a perimeter length (see annotated figure 1 below), the periphery comprising: a concave portion (see annotated figure 1 below; “the inner shaped core or cushion element 22 is in the form of a trough having a concave interior” paragraph 38) that is concave with respect to the center of the central portion, the concave portion comprising at least 80% of the perimeter length of the periphery of the central portion; and a convex portion that is convex with respect to the center of the central portion (see annotated figure 1; see also figure 7 annotated below showing that with the gel inserted, the portion marked ‘convex portion’ in the annotated figure 1 would have a convex curvature with respect to the center of the central portion), the convex portion comprising at least 10% of the perimeter length of the periphery; an outer portion circumferentially surrounding the central portion, the outer portion and central portion collectively comprising the entire single integral padding sheet (see figure 7; the core 22 and gel insert 60 collectively comprise the entire padding sheet); wherein the central portion has a first compressibility (“a flowable gel material is inserted into the recess 27” paragraph 41) and the outer portion has a second compressibility (“the core 22 is made from a generally elastic material such as a closed cell rubber” paragraph 39) and wherein the first durometer is different than the second durometer (Examiner notes that flowable gel has a greater compressibility than a closed cell rubber); wherein the single integral padding sheet is a single material (core 22 and insert 60 together are a single material because the gel is affixed to and retained in the core 22, as described in paragraph 41 of Godshaw, so the two pieces are integral in the final product, thus their combination is a single material).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 of Godshaw showing the central portion and outer portion with details as claimed
PNG
media_image2.png
355
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 7 of Godshaw showing part of the periphery and in particular the convex portion
Godshaw does not explicitly disclose: an upper support configured to couple to a leg of a user above a knee; a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee; the shell being coupled to the upper support and the lower support and positioned between the upper support and the lower support
However, Popowski teaches a knee pad (knee guard 10) with an upper support configured to couple to a leg of a user above a knee (strap 28; see figure 1 showing the strap 28 coupling to a leg of a user above the knee); a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee (strap 30; see figure 1 showing the strap 30 coupling to a leg of a user below the knee).
Popowski teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of knee pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the strap of Godshaw with the coupling system of Popowski, which uses an upper strap and a lower strap, on the knee pad of Godshaw in order to keep the area behind the user’s knee free of material, which would allow for easier and more comfortable bending of the knee while wearing the pad, as well as to better secure the knee pad to the user’s limbs by using two adjustable straps instead of just one. Examiner notes that, as modified, the shell of Godshaw would be coupled to and positioned between the upper and lower supports.
Regarding claim 2, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 1, wherein the first compressibility is more than the second compressibility (“a flowable gel material is inserted into the recess 27” Godshaw, paragraph 41; “the core 22 is made from a generally elastic material such as a closed cell rubber” Godshaw, paragraph 39; Examiner notes that flowable gel has a greater compressibility than a closed cell rubber).
Regarding claim 3, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 1, wherein the convex portion is located in a lower half of the periphery (see figure 1 of Godshaw annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the convex portion is located in a lower half of the periphery).
Regarding claim 4, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 1, wherein the convex portion is located on a medial side of the periphery (see figure 1 of Godshaw annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above; Examiner notes that figure 1 is described as a knee pad for the left knee in paragraph 15 of Godshaw, therefore the convex portion is located on a medial side as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 1, the shell further comprising: a front wall (outside face/surface 100, Godshaw); and a pair of lateral walls (outside lateral right and left walls 110, 112, Godshaw), each lateral wall extending from an opposing side of the front wall (see figures 16-18 of Godshaw showing the lateral walls extending from opposing sides of the front wall).
Regarding claim 7, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 6, the pair of lateral walls extending rearward, away from the interior surface of the shell, past an anterior edge of the single integral padding sheet (see figures 4 and 16-18 of Godshaw; Examiner notes that the lateral walls extend past an anterior (front) edge of the padding sheet as the front of the padding sheet is curved as shown in figure 4) such that each one of the pair of lateral walls provides a supporting force against a side of the knee when the user is kneeling (“outside lateral right and left walls 110, 112 of case 20 are spaced from one another in the range of 3 to 5 inches adjacent the front end 106 to enhance stability and spread the pressure on the pad at the [top] end 106” Godshaw, paragraph 45; Examiner also notes that it is understood that because the lateral walls of Godshaw have the claimed structure, they would also perform the function as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 1, the shell further comprising: a plurality of protrusions extending inward from the interior surface of the shell toward the knee of the user (snaps 42, see figures 4 and 5 of Godshaw showing that the snaps are protruding from the interior surface of the shell); wherein the plurality of protrusions couple to the single integral padding sheet (“an external convex surface 21 of the cushion element 22 includes snap members 40 compatible with snap members such as snap member 42 of shell 20, for attachment of the shell or casing or outer member 20 to the cushion element 22” Godshaw, paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 9, Godshaw discloses: A knee pad comprising: a shell (outer shell 20); and a padding sheet (core 22 with gel material 60) formed from a padding material and coupled to an interior surface of the shell (“the hard outer casing or shell 20 is typically attached by means of snaps, for example, snaps 30, 32, 34, and 36 to the interior shaped cushion element 22” paragraph 37), the padding sheet comprising: a central portion (see annotated figure 1 below) sized to interface with the knee of the user, the central portion comprising: a periphery (see annotated figure 1 below) that defines a perimeter of the central portion, the periphery comprising a convex portion that is convex with respect to a center of the central portion (see the annotated figure 7 below showing that the portion labeled “convex portion” in figure 1 below is convex); a longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 1 below) that defines the longest vertical arc extending across the central portion; and a lateral axis (see annotated figure 1 below) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and bisecting the longitudinal axis; wherein the lateral axis, the longitudinal axis, and the perimeter of the periphery together defining four quadrants of the central portion, the four quadrants of the central portion comprising: a lower-medial quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below) positioned in a lower half of the central portion and on a medial side; an upper-medial quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below); a lower-lateral quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below); and an upper-lateral quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below); an outer portion (see annotated figure 1 below) circumferentially surrounding the central portion; wherein an area of the lower-medial quadrant is less than areas of the upper-medial quadrant, the lower-lateral quadrant, and the upper-lateral quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below); wherein the padding sheet is a single integral piece of a single padding material (core 22 with gel material 60 together are a single integral piece of padding material because the gel is affixed to and retained in the core 22, as described in paragraph 41 of Godshaw, so the two pieces are integral in the final product, thus their combination is a single integral piece of a single padding material).
PNG
media_image3.png
420
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 of Godshaw showing the center, periphery, outer portion, axes, and quadrants as claimed
PNG
media_image2.png
355
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 7 of Godshaw showing part of the periphery and in particular the convex portion
Godshaw does not explicitly disclose: an upper support configured to couple to a leg of a user above a knee; a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee; the shell being coupled to the upper support and the lower support and positioned between the upper support and the lower support.
However, Popowski teaches a knee pad (knee guard 10) with an upper support configured to couple to a leg of a user above a knee (strap 28; see figure 1 showing the strap 28 coupling to a leg of a user above the knee); a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee (strap 30; see figure 1 showing the strap 30 coupling to a leg of a user below the knee).
Popowski teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of knee pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the strap of Godshaw with the coupling system of Popowski, which uses an upper strap and a lower strap, on the knee pad of Godshaw in order to keep the area behind the user’s knee free of material, which would allow for easier and more comfortable bending of the knee while wearing the pad, as well as to better secure the knee pad to the user’s limbs by using two adjustable straps instead of just one. Examiner notes that, as modified, the shell of Godshaw would be coupled to and positioned between the upper and lower supports.
Regarding claim 10, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 9, wherein a compressibility of the outer portion of the padding sheet (“the core 22 is made from a generally elastic material such as a closed cell rubber” paragraph 39) is less than a compressibility of the central portion (“a flowable gel material is inserted into the recess 27” paragraph 41) of the padding sheet (Examiner notes that closed cell rubber (which makes up the majority of the outer portion of the padding sheet) has a lower compressibility than a gel (which makes up the majority of the central portion)).
Regarding claim 12, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 9, wherein the outer portion and the central portion collectively comprise the entire padding sheet (see figure 7 of Godshaw; the core 22 and gel insert 60 collectively comprise the entire padding sheet).
Regarding claim 13, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 9, the shell further comprising: a front wall (outside face/surface 100, Godshaw); a first lateral wall extending rearward from a first side of the front wall (outside lateral right wall 110, Godshaw; see figures 16-18 of Godshaw showing the lateral walls extending from opposing sides of the front wall); and a second lateral wall extending rearward from a second side of the front wall opposing the first side of the front wall (outside lateral left wall 112, Godshaw; see figures 16-18 of Godshaw showing the lateral walls extending from opposing sides of the front wall).
Regarding claim 14, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 13, the first lateral wall extending past an anterior edge of the padding sheet (see figures 4 and 16-18 of Godshaw; Examiner notes that the lateral walls extend past an anterior (front) edge of the padding sheet as the front of the padding sheet is curved as shown in figure 4), such that the first lateral wall applies a force inward, against a side of the knee when the user is kneeling (“outside lateral right and left walls 110, 112 of case 20 are spaced from one another in the range of 3 to 5 inches adjacent the front end 106 to enhance stability and spread the pressure on the pad at the [top] end 106” Godshaw, paragraph 45; Examiner also notes that it is understood that because the lateral walls of Godshaw have the claimed structure, they would also perform the function as claimed).
Claim(s) 15-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godshaw in view of Plant (US 2020/0282655).
Regarding claim 15, Godshaw discloses: A knee pad comprising: a shell (outer shell 20); and a padding sheet (core 22 with gel material 60) coupled to an interior surface of the shell (“the hard outer casing or shell 20 is typically attached by means of snaps, for example, snaps 30, 32, 34, and 36 to the interior shaped cushion element 22” paragraph 37), the padding sheet comprising: a central portion (see annotated figure 1 below) sized to interface with a knee of a user, the central portion comprising: a periphery that defines a perimeter (see annotated figure 1 below) of the central portion; a longitudinal axis (see annotated figure 1 below) that defines the longest vertical arc extending between the periphery across the central portion; and a lateral axis (see annotated figure 1 below) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and bisecting the longitudinal axis at an intersection, wherein the longitudinal axis, the lateral axis, and the periphery define four quadrants of the central portion, the four quadrants comprising: a lower-medial quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below); an upper-medial quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below); a lower-lateral quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below); and an upper-lateral quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below); an outer portion (see annotated figure 1 below) circumferentially surrounding the central portion; wherein the central portion has a first compressibility (“a flowable gel material is inserted into the recess 27” paragraph 41) and the outer portion has a second compressibility (“the core 22 is made from a generally elastic material such as a closed cell rubber” paragraph 39), and wherein the first compressibility is more than the second compressibility (Examiner notes that gel has a greater compressibility than a closed cell rubber); wherein each of the four quadrants defines a central radius (see annotated figure 1 below) extending from the intersection of the lateral axis and the longitudinal axis to the periphery, and wherein a central radius of the lower-medial quadrant is smaller than a central radius of the upper-medial quadrant, the lower-lateral quadrant, and the upper-lateral quadrant (see annotated figure 1 below), and wherein the padding sheet is formed from a single integral sheet of a single padding material (core 22 with gel material 60 together form a single integral piece of padding material because the gel is affixed to and retained in the core 22, as described in paragraph 41, so the two pieces are integral in the final product, thus their combination is a single integral piece of a single padding material); wherein the central portion has a first thickness defined between an exterior surface and an interior surface of the padding sheet and the outer portion has a second thickness defined between the exterior surface and the interior surface of the padding sheet, wherein the second thickness is different than the first thickness (see annotated figure 7 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
416
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1 of Godshaw showing the center, periphery, outer portion, axes, and radii as claimed
PNG
media_image5.png
386
677
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 7 of Godshaw showing that the outer portion has a different thickness than the central portion
Godshaw does not explicitly disclose: wherein the central portion includes holes having a first size and the outer portion includes holes having a second size.
However, Plant teaches a pad that includes holes in a central portion having a first size and holes in an outer portion having a second size (see figure 9B which is described in paragraph 99 as showing “geometry construction comprising defining the maximum and minimum diameter of energy controlling cells by distance to bone and weight target”, the cells in the central portion (near the knee) are larger, as can also be seen in figure 9D; see also paragraph 81 which states “at least one of the cells comprises an opening at one or more of the upper surface and the lower surface of the single layer”)
PNG
media_image6.png
367
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
373
444
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated figures 9B and 9D of Plant showing larger holes in the center (near the knee) and smaller holes in the outer portion
Plant teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of protective knee pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the pad of Godshaw with the energy cell construction as taught by Plant, which includes holes of a first, larger size in the central portion and a second, smaller size in the outer portion, in order to “improve impact protection whilst being thinner, lighter and more breathable, offering more comfort and range of motion” (Plant, paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 16, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 15, wherein each central radius is positioned halfway between the longitudinal axis and the lateral axis in each of the four quadrants (Godshaw, see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 17, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 15, wherein the central portion and the outer portion collectively comprising the entire padding sheet (Godshaw, see figure 7; the core 22 and gel insert 60 collectively comprise the entire padding sheet).
Regarding claim 18, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 17, wherein the shell is formed from a second material that is different from the padding material (Godshaw, “the outer casing or shell 20 may be manufactured from any of a number of materials including […] rigid plastic material” paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 20, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 15, the shell further comprising: a front wall (Godshaw, outside face/surface 100); a first lateral wall extending rearward from a first side of the front wall (Godshaw, outside lateral right wall 110; see figures 16-18 showing the lateral walls extending from opposing sides of the front wall); and a second lateral wall extending rearward from a second side of the front wall opposing the first side of the front wall (Godshaw, outside lateral left wall 112; see figures 16-18 showing the lateral walls extending from opposing sides of the front wall).
Regarding claim 21, Godshaw as modified discloses: The knee pad of claim 15, wherein the first size is greater than the second size, and wherein the holes extend through the padding sheet (as modified, the first holes are larger than the second holes and the holes extend through the padding sheet; see Plant, paragraph 81 which states “at least one of the cells comprises an opening at one or more of the upper surface and the lower surface of the single layer”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godshaw/Plant and further in view of Popowski.
Regarding claim 19, Godshaw as modified does not explicitly disclose: The knee pad of claim 15, further comprising: an upper support configured to couple to a leg of the user above the knee; and a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee; wherein the shell is coupled to the upper support and the lower support and extends between the upper support and the lower support.
However, Popowski teaches a knee pad (knee guard 10) with an upper support configured to couple to a leg of a user above a knee (strap 28; see figure 1 showing the strap 28 coupling to a leg of a user above the knee); a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee (strap 30; see figure 1 showing the strap 30 coupling to a leg of a user below the knee).
Popowski teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of knee pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the strap of Godshaw with the coupling system of Popowski, which uses an upper strap and a lower strap, on the knee pad of Godshaw in order to keep the area behind the user’s knee free of material, which would allow for easier and more comfortable bending of the knee while wearing the pad, as well as to better secure the knee pad to the user’s limbs by using two adjustable straps instead of just one. Examiner notes that, as modified, the shell of Godshaw would be coupled to and positioned between the upper and lower supports.
Going forward, an alternative interpretation of the difference in compression characteristics of each region is used based on the result of variously sized holes in each region.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plant in view of Godshaw and Popowski.
Regarding claim 1 as alternatively interpreted by Examiner, Plant discloses: A knee pad comprising a single integral padding sheet (see figures 9B and 9D below, the single integral padding sheet can be considered the middle portion labeled in the annotated figure 9B), the single integral padding sheet comprising: a central portion sized to interface with the knee of the user (see figures 9B and 9D below), an outer portion circumferentially surrounding the central portion (see figures 9B and 9D below), the outer portion and the central portion collectively comprising the entire single integral padding sheet (see figures 9B and 9D below), wherein the central portion has a first compressibility and the outer portion has a second compressibility and wherein the first compressibility is different than the second compressibility (Examiner notes that this limitation is being interpreted using an alternate interpretation such that the claimed difference in compressibility is a result of holes in a central portion having a first size and holes in an outer portion having a second size; Plant teaches these differently sized holes, see figure 9B which is described in paragraph 99 as showing “geometry construction comprising defining the maximum and minimum diameter of energy controlling cells by distance to bone and weight target”, the cells in the central portion (near the knee) are larger, as can also be seen in figure 9D; see also paragraph 81 which states “at least one of the cells comprises an opening at one or more of the upper surface and the lower surface of the single layer”), wherein the single integral padding sheet is a single material (“The anatomical protective item may comprise an elastomeric material” paragraph 116).
PNG
media_image8.png
300
309
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
225
258
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 9B of Plant, showing the central portion with larger holes and outer portion with smaller holes, 9D is provided to show the holes in more detail
Plant does not explicitly disclose: an upper support configured to couple to a leg of a user above a knee; a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee; a shell coupled to the upper support and the lower support and positioned between the upper support and the lower support, the shell formed from a first material; and a single integral padding sheet coupled to an interior surface of the shell such that the single integral padding sheet is positioned between the shell and the knee of the user when worn; the central portion comprising: a center; and a periphery that extends around the center of the central portion and defines a perimeter length, the periphery comprising: a concave portion that is concave with respect to the center of the central portion, the concave portion comprising at least 80% of the perimeter length of the periphery of the central portion; and a convex portion that is convex with respect to the center of the central portion, the convex portion comprising at least 10% of the perimeter length of the periphery.
However, Godshaw teaches: A knee pad comprising: a shell (outer shell 20), the shell formed from a first material (“the outer casing or shell 20 may be manufactured from any of a number of materials including […] rigid plastic material” paragraph 37); and a single integral padding sheet (core 22 with gel material 60 form a single integral padding sheet) coupled to an interior surface of the shell such that the single integral padding sheet is positioned between the shell and the knee of the user when worn (“the hard outer casing or shell 20 is typically attached by means of snaps, for example, snaps 30, 32, 34, and 36 to the interior shaped cushion element 22” paragraph 37), the single integral padding sheet comprising: a central portion (see annotated figure 1 with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 over Godshaw/Popowski above) sized to interface with the knee of the user, the central portion comprising: a center (see annotated figure 1 with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 over Godshaw/Popowski above); and a periphery that extends around the center of the central portion and defines a perimeter length (see annotated figure 1 with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 over Godshaw/Popowski above), the periphery comprising: a concave portion (see annotated figure 1 with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 over Godshaw/Popowski above; “the inner shaped core or cushion element 22 is in the form of a trough having a concave interior” paragraph 38) that is concave with respect to the center of the central portion, the concave portion comprising at least 80% of the perimeter length of the periphery of the central portion; and a convex portion that is convex with respect to the center of the central portion (see annotated figure 1; see also figure 7 annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 over Godshaw/Popowski above showing that with the gel inserted, the portion marked ‘convex portion’ in the annotated figure 1 would have a convex curvature with respect to the center of the central portion), the convex portion comprising at least 10% of the perimeter length of the periphery; an outer portion circumferentially surrounding the central portion, the outer portion and central portion collectively comprising the entire single integral padding sheet (see figure 7; the core 22 and gel insert 60 collectively comprise the entire padding sheet); and a strap (24, 26).
Godshaw teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of knee pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the outer shell and strap of Godshaw to the outer surface of the padding of Plant in order to provide improved impact protection for the user’s knee and in order to maintain a secure fit of the pad on the user’s knee so that the proper protection can be maintained even during physical activity that involves a lot of movement. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the internal side of the padding of Plant with the particular concave and convex profile as taught by Godshaw in order to provide additional material at the knee cap which would improve the cushioning characteristics in that area in particular.
Plant as modified does not explicitly disclose: an upper support configured to couple to a leg of a user above a knee; a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee; the shell being coupled to the upper support and the lower support and positioned between the upper support and the lower support.
However, Popowski teaches a knee pad (knee guard 10) with an upper support configured to couple to a leg of a user above a knee (strap 28; see figure 1 showing the strap 28 coupling to a leg of a user above the knee); a lower support configured to couple to the leg of the user below the knee (strap 30; see figure 1 showing the strap 30 coupling to a leg of a user below the knee).
Popowski teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of knee pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the strap of Godshaw with the coupling system of Popowski, which uses an upper strap and a lower strap, on the knee pad of Godshaw in order to keep the area behind the user’s knee free of material, which would allow for easier and more comfortable bending of the knee while wearing the pad, as well as to better secure the knee pad to the user’s limbs by using two adjustable straps instead of just one. Examiner notes that, as modified, the shell of Godshaw would be coupled to and positioned between the upper and lower supports.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732