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 of Species A (Applicant cites claims 1-4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 22-26, 32, 33 and 35 as elected with Species A) in the reply filed on September 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant did not specify whether the election was made with or without traverse. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Examiner notes that claim 20 was not included in the listing of elected claims, while claims 22 and 23 were listed. Since claims 22 and 23 are dependent from non-elected claim 20, claims 22 and 23 are further withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species.
Acknowledgement of Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on September 18, 2024 has been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24-26, 32, 33 and 35 have been amended; claims 5, 8-13, 18, 19, 27-31, 34 and 36-43 are canceled; claims 16, 17 and 20-23 are withdrawn from further consideration. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 7, 14-17, 20-26, 32, 33 and 35 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 24-26, 32, 33 and 35.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (IDS). See ¶ 0004-0007 of Applicant’s Specification, which list 4 references that have not been included on any of the IDS documents filed. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 9 appears to be a drawing of a section of a structural element (panel #104), but does not contain a jagged boundary line to represent such an incomplete portion of the structural element.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 20 is disclosed as being representative of Detail “A” in Fig. 19, but shows a rectangular section, while Detail A in Fig. 19 is a circular section shape.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “302” has been used to designate both “deformable layer” (¶ 0135-0136) and “pads” (¶ 0137).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “106” has been used to designate both “biasing member” (¶ 0115 and others) and “central spine” (¶ 0116).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "105" (¶ 0115, for example) and "106" (¶ 0116) have both been used to designate “central spine”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 205, 206 (Figs. 11-12).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 304 (¶ 0134, 0137).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of “the central spine runs coronally” (claim 26, (a)) (i.e. ear-to-ear direction) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings only appear to show the subject matter of clause (b), wherein the central spine runs sagitally (i.e. front to back direction). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification (Abstract)
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it begins with a phrase which can be implied (“Disclosed is…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification (Disclosure)
The use of the term “Kevlar”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (¶ 0017, 0043, 0084 and 0109). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be fully capitalized wherever it appears and, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term (i.e. “KEVLAR®, a type of para-aramid fiber”).
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in ¶ 0034, “sagitally” should recite “sagittally”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “securing mechanism” in claim 35, line 3.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 26, 32, 33 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4: “the shape” should recite “a shape”
Claim 4, lines 1-2: “the overlapping of the panels” should recite “the partial overlapping of the panels that are adjacent one another” (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection section below for further context
Claim 6, line 2: “a wearer” should recite “the user” for sake of consistent terminology (see the preamble of independent claim 1)
Claim 7, line 6: “moulded” should recite “molded”
Claim 7, lines 11 and 21-24: each of these lines includes a generic polymer name, which should be completely in lowercase (i.e. “Expanded PolyUrethane” in line 21 should recite “expanded polyurethane”, for example)
Claim 7, lines 34-41 and 43-50: in each of these lines, a space should be added between the numeral and “mm”
Claim 7, lines 34, 41, 43 and 50: in each of these lines, Applicant uses the tilde symbol (~), which appears to be representative of the word “approximately”; Examiner suggests reciting “approximately” instead of using the tilde (~), for improved clarity, and since Applicant’s Specification defines the parameters for the interpretation of “approximately” in the last sentence of ¶ 0140.
Claim 7, line 41: “and,” should be deleted
Claim 26, line 4: “sagitally” should recite “sagittally”
Claim 26, line 7: the period after “and” should be removed or replaced with a comma
Claims 32 and 33: in claim 32, Applicant positively recites “an outside surface”, but in claim 33 (dependent from claim 32) Applicant refers to “the outer surface” twice. Examiner suggests either amending claim 32 to positively recite “an outer surface” or amending the instances of “the outer surface” in claim 33 to refer to “the outside surface”, for sake of consistent claim terminology
Claim 33, lines 5-6: a comma should be added after “such that” and after “bends”
Claim 35, lines 7-9 and 11: each of these lines includes a generic polymer name, which should be completely in lowercase (i.e. “Polypropylene” in line 8 should recite “polypropylene”, for example)
Claim 35, line 15: “localised” should recite “localized”
Claim 35, line 17: a semicolon should be added at the end of the line
Claim 35, lines 19-20: a comma should be added after “system” and after “position”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 ( and claims 2-4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 24-26, 32, 33 and 35 at least due to dependency from independent claim 1) 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant recites “a plurality of panels” and subsequently refers to “one or more of the other panels”. It is indefinite whether “the other panels” is in reference to all of the panels of the plurality, or perhaps a subset of the plurality of panels (i.e. the quantity of the “panels” has not been set by the claim). Correction is required. Examiner suggests “one or more of the plurality of panels” as one potential remedy.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “the panels that are adjacent partially overlap”. First, the phrase “the panels that are adjacent” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claims. Second, the structure to which these panels are intended to partially overlap is unclear. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “wherein some of the panels are adjacent one another, and wherein at least some of the panels that are adjacent one another partially overlap one another” as one potential remedy.
Claims 7 (line 20) and 35 (line 10) each contain the trademark/trade name “Kevlar”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe “a para-aramid fiber” and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Examiner suggests amending “Kevlar” to instead recite “a para-aramid fiber”.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant contains several sub-listings of potential limitations that are preceded by the phrase “at least one of”. In some of these sub-listings (see (f) and (g), for example, with sub-listings in roman numerals), the metes and bounds are unclear because “at least one of” implies that all of the sub-listings could be correct. However, under (f), it would not seem to be possible for both (i) and (viii) to be able to simultaneously be true, since “[approximately] 15 mm” and “[approximately] 30 mm” are both outside of the ± 20% parameters that Applicant defines “approximately” to suggest in ¶ 0140 of the Specification. Correction is required. Examiner suggests clarifying which (if any) of the sub-listing elements could be combined with one another to be true, or rephrasing the “at least one” stipulation to not imply that all of the sub-listing elements could be true. For purposes of examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as best as can be understood when applying any prior art thereagainst. Examiner notes that other sub-listings within the body of claim 7 may also contain contradictory sub-listing elements with respect to the material listings, material property listings, types of couplings and/or fabric types, and Applicant should review claim 7 fully for any additional potentially contradictory terms.
An effort has been made to identify all indefinite language with the pending claims. However, since claims are replete (in particular, claim 7) with indefinite language, Examiner notes the above listing of 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections may not be conclusive and Applicant is required to review every claim for compliance to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper application of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 24 and 35, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castro et al. (hereinafter “Castro”) (USPN 9,693,594).
Regarding independent claim 1, Castro discloses an impact protection system (protective device #10) for wearing on a head of a user (Title of invention of Castro is “protective headgear”; Examiner notes the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense), the impact protection system comprising a protective layer (shell #11 is a protective layer) formed from a plurality of panels (collection of panels #14 form the shell #11), wherein at least one of the panels can translate relative to one or more of the other panels a sufficient amount to facilitate a change in the shape of the protective layer (Col. 6, Lines 18-49 of Castro describe how the panels are flexibly connected to one another with flexible seams #16 to allow for the panels #14 to move with respect to one another in conformance to the wearer’s head; Examiner notes that any panel’s #14 movement relative to another panel’s #14 position would cause a change in shape of shell #11, at least to some extent, absent further distinguishing language in the claim).
Regarding claim 2, Castro discloses that at least one of: a) the panels are flexible and b) one of the panels comprises a notch and another one of the panels comprises a tab, such that the tab fits within the notch to locate the panels in a neutral position (Castro at least meets limitation “a)”: the collection of panels are flexible relative to one another, via at least the seams #16 therebetween; the panels #14 themselves are disclosed to be lightweight, rigid or semi-rigid (Col. 6, Lines 12-14 of Castro), wherein “semi-rigid” indicates there would be at least some degree of flexibility).
Regarding claim 3, Castro discloses that at least some of the panels that are adjacent partially overlap (see Fig. 5C of Castro, panels #14x and #14y overlap at least partially).
Regarding claim 6, Castro discloses that the system further comprises a deformable layer (headpiece #12; Col. 3, Lines 57-58 of Castro describe headpiece #12 as being preferably made from a deformable material) inside the protective layer so as to face a wearer in use (headpiece #12 underlies the shell #11 to be disposed closer to the head of the user).
Regarding claim 7, Castro discloses that at least one of: a) the deformable layer comprises a shear thickening or non-Newtonian component; b) the deformable layer comprises at least one of: i) a shear thickening foam; ii) a shear thickening molded foam; iii) a polymer matrix comprising a shear thickening additive; iv) a foam with non-Newtonian fluid filling; v) a non-Newtonian material; vi) a polyurethane energy-absorbing material; and, vii) a polyurethane material containing polyborodimethylsiloxane; c) the deformable layer is made of at least one of: i) an auxetic material; ii) a deformable fluid layer; iii) an impact absorbing foam; iv) an elastically deformable layer; v) a plastically deformable layer; vi) a plastic; vii) a rubber; viii) Kevlar; ix) an EPU (Expanded polyurethane) foam; x) an EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) foam; xi) an EPP (Expanded Polypropylene) foam; and, xii)a PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide) foam; d) the deformable layer is removable; e) the deformable layer and the protective layer are at least partially coupled using at least one of: i) mechanical bonding; ii) chemical bonding; iii) welding; iv) adhesive; and, v) fasteners; f) the deformable layer has a thickness that is at least one of: i) ~15mm; ii) >20mm; iii) >23mm; iv) <26mm; v) <30mm; vi) 20-25mm; vii)23-26mm; and, viii) -30mm; and, g) the protective layer has a thickness that is at least one of: i) ~1mm; 3ii) >1 mm; iii) >1.5mm; iv) <3mm; v)<4mm; vi) 1-4mm; vii)1.5-3mm; and, viii) ~4mm; h) the deformable layer has a cover extending over an inner surface so as to be located between the deformable layer and the head of the user during use, the cover being made of at least one of: i) a woven fabric; ii) a non-woven fabric; iii) an elasticated fabric; and, iv) an open cell foam; i) the protective layer has a cover extending over an outer surface, the cover being made of at least one of: i) a woven fabric; ii) a non-woven fabric; iii) an elasticated fabric; and, iv) an open cell foam (among several other clauses being met, Castro at least meets clause “b) vi)”, wherein the headpiece #12 (i.e. deformable layer) is disclosed as being made of urethane foam (Col. 4, Lines 3-9 of Castro)).
Regarding claim 24, Castro discloses that the relative translation between the panels can occur in three dimensions (the panels #14 are curved to define an overall dome/head shaped shell #11; since the curved panels can move relative to one another, there are three directions of translation; see Figs. 3-5C of Castro).
Regarding claim 35, Castro discloses that at least one of: a) the protective layer is coupled to a securing mechanism to secure the impact protection system to the user; b) the protective layer is made of at least one of: i) a thermoplastic polymer; ii) ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene); iii) PP (Polypropylene); iv) PC (Polycarbonate); v) Kevlar; and, vi) HDPE (High-density polyethylene); c) the protective layer comprises at least one of: i) a honeycomb structure; ii) one or more holes that allow airflow therethrough; iii) surface features that enhance localized flexibility; iv) variable thickness; and, v) ribbing d) the impact protection system can be folded or squashed for storage; and, e) the width of the impact protection system when folded relative to the width in a neutral position is reduced by at least one of: i) 40%; ii) 50%; iii) 60%; and, iv) 70% (among other clauses being met, Castro at least meets clause “c) ii)”, wherein the shell #11 (i.e. protective layer) is disclosed as having one or more holes #17 that allow airflow therethrough (Col. 9, Lines 33-36; Fig. 5A of Castro)).
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 14, 15, 24-26, 32, 33 and 35, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puchalski (USPN 6,751,808).
Regarding independent claim 1, Puchalski discloses an impact protection system (helmet construction #10) for wearing on a head of a user (see Abstract of Puchalski; Examiner notes the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense), the impact protection system comprising a protective layer (shell #14 is a protective layer) formed from a plurality of panels (collection of panels #26/28/30 form the shell #14 (Col. 7, Lines 27-28 of Puchalski)), wherein at least one of the panels can translate relative to one or more of the other panels a sufficient amount to facilitate a change in the shape of the protective layer (Col. 1, Lines 6-10 and Col. 2, Lines 16-25 of Puchalski describe how the panels are movable relative to one another in a permitted and controlled direction in increments; Examiner notes that any panel’s #26/28/30 movement relative to another panel’s position would cause a change in shape of shell #14, at least to some extent, absent further distinguishing language in the claim).
Regarding claim 2, Puchalski discloses that at least one of: a) the panels are flexible and b) one of the panels comprises a notch and another one of the panels comprises a tab, such that the tab fits within the notch to locate the panels in a neutral position (Puchalski at least meets limitation “a)”: the collection of panels are flexible; the panels #14 themselves are disclosed to be rigid or semi-rigid plastic (Col. 7, Lines 30-31 of Puchalski), wherein “semi-rigid” indicates there would be at least some degree of flexibility).
Regarding claim 3, Puchalski discloses that at least some of the panels that are adjacent partially overlap (see Fig. 2 of Puchalski, panel #26 overlaps with panel #28; panel #28 overlaps with both panels #26 and #30).
Regarding claim 6, Puchalski discloses that the system further comprises a deformable layer (pads #22 are strips of resiliently compressible foam cushioning (Col. 7, Lines 21-22 of Puchalski)) inside the protective layer so as to face a wearer in use (see Fig. 2, which shows pads #22 disposed within the panels #26/28/30 (i.e. protective layer)).
Regarding claim 7, Puchalski discloses that at least one of: a) the deformable layer comprises a shear thickening or non-Newtonian component; b) the deformable layer comprises at least one of: i) a shear thickening foam; ii) a shear thickening molded foam; iii) a polymer matrix comprising a shear thickening additive; iv) a foam with non-Newtonian fluid filling; v) a non-Newtonian material; vi) a polyurethane energy-absorbing material; and, vii) a polyurethane material containing polyborodimethylsiloxane; c) the deformable layer is made of at least one of: i) an auxetic material; ii) a deformable fluid layer; iii) an impact absorbing foam; iv) an elastically deformable layer; v) a plastically deformable layer; vi) a plastic; vii) a rubber; viii) Kevlar; ix) an EPU (Expanded polyurethane) foam; x) an EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) foam; xi) an EPP (Expanded Polypropylene) foam; and, xii)a PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide) foam; d) the deformable layer is removable; e) the deformable layer and the protective layer are at least partially coupled using at least one of: i) mechanical bonding; ii) chemical bonding; iii) welding; iv) adhesive; and, v) fasteners; f) the deformable layer has a thickness that is at least one of: i) ~15mm; ii) >20mm; iii) >23mm; iv) <26mm; v) <30mm; vi) 20-25mm; vii)23-26mm; and, viii) -30mm; and, g) the protective layer has a thickness that is at least one of: i) ~1mm; 3ii) >1 mm; iii) >1.5mm; iv) <3mm; v)<4mm; vi) 1-4mm; vii)1.5-3mm; and, viii) ~4mm; h) the deformable layer has a cover extending over an inner surface so as to be located between the deformable layer and the head of the user during use, the cover being made of at least one of: i) a woven fabric; ii) a non-woven fabric; iii) an elasticated fabric; and, iv) an open cell foam; i) the protective layer has a cover extending over an outer surface, the cover being made of at least one of: i) a woven fabric; ii) a non-woven fabric; iii) an elasticated fabric; and, iv) an open cell foam (among several other clauses being met, Castro at least meets clauses “c) iii and iv)”, wherein the pads #22 are disclosed as being made of resiliently compressible foam (Col. 7, Lines 21-22 of Puchalski), wherein resilient compressibility indicates an impact absorbing foam (at least to some degree) and an elastically deformable layer).
Regarding claim 14, Puchalski discloses that the deformable layer comprises a plurality of sections that are each attached to a single one of the panels (see Fig. 2 of Puchalski, wherein there are three pads #22 and three panels #26/28/30, one pad for each panel).
Regarding claim 15, Puchalski discloses that the plurality of sections of the deformable layer comprise chamfered edges to accommodate the translation of the panels (the plurality of sections (i.e. pads #22) among them contain chamfered edges (see the edges of pads #22, which are shown to not be exactly orthogonal to the inner surface of the panels from which they extend, or not exactly orthogonal to the inner surface of the pads themselves, which indicates at least some degree of chamfering, absent further distinguishing limitations in the claim)).
Regarding claim 24, Puchalski discloses that the relative translation between the panels can occur in three dimensions (the panels #26/28/30 are curved to define an overall dome/head shaped shell #14; since the curved panels can move relative to one another, there are three directions of translation; see Fig. 2 of Puchalski).
Regarding claim 25, Puchalski discloses that one of the panels is a central spine that is flexible (as noted above, the panels are flexible in that they are “semi-rigid”, which has some degree of flexibility; central panel #28 is a central spine).
Regarding claim 26, Puchalski discloses that at least one of: a) the central spine runs coronally; b) the central spine runs sagitally; c) a plurality of the panels are anchored to the central spine; d) the central spine has a bias towards extension; e) the central spine has a bias towards flexion; and, f) the central spine comprises a biasing member that is coupled to an inside surface of the central spine (Puchalski at least meets the limitation “b)” since the central panel #28 runs front-to-back (i.e. sagittally)).
Regarding claim 32, Puchalski discloses that the central spine comprises a biasing member that is coupled to an outside surface of the central spine (the helmet #10 includes fasteners #138 that can be a rubber material (i.e. each rubber fastener #138 is a biasing member) to permit partial elastic deformation upon impact forces which do not exceed a critical load (Col. 10, Lines 61-65 of Puchalski); Puchalski also teaches that, while the drawings depict the panels #26/30 as having the double walled construction, alternatively the central panel #28 could be double-walled (Col. 10, Lines 41-43 of Puchalski), which indicates that the rubber fastener #138 could have its opposing ends #142/144 held against the outer surface of the central panel #28).
Regarding claim 33, Puchalski discloses that at least one of: a) the biasing member extends through one or more apertures in the central spine, thereby securing the biasing member to the outer surface while allowing the biasing member to slide relative to the central spine during bending; and, b) ends of the biasing member extend through apertures in the central spine, such that as the central spine bends the biasing member is free to slide relative to the central spine while remaining substantially abutting the outer surface (the biasing member (i.e. rubber fastener #138) is at least capable of sliding relative to the edge of the opening through which the fastener resides, when the shell #14 is bent among the panels #26/28/30; head #142 of fastener #138 is in abutment with the outer surface of the panel during bending and when relaxed, as the head #142 and base #144 of the fastener sandwich around the panels and the shaft #140 extends through the panels’ aligned openings).
Regarding claim 35, Puchalski discloses that at least one of: a) the protective layer is coupled to a securing mechanism to secure the impact protection system to the user; b) the protective layer is made of at least one of: i) a thermoplastic polymer; ii) ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene); iii) PP (Polypropylene); iv) PC (Polycarbonate); v) Kevlar; and, vi) HDPE (High-density polyethylene); c) the protective layer comprises at least one of: i) a honeycomb structure; ii) one or more holes that allow airflow therethrough; iii) surface features that enhance localized flexibility; iv) variable thickness; and, v) ribbing d) the impact protection system can be folded or squashed for storage; and, e) the width of the impact protection system when folded relative to the width in a neutral position is reduced by at least one of: i) 40%; ii) 50%; iii) 60%; and, iv) 70% (Puchalski at least meets limitation “a)”, with chin strap #16 being a securing mechanism used to secure the helmet to the user; Applicant recites “securing mechanism”, which is being interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a non-structural term “mechanism” coupled with the functional language “securing” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Therefore, “securing mechanism” as recited in claim 35 is limited to the examples of securing mechanisms recited in the Specification and their functional equivalents. See MPEP 2181.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4, as best as can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castro as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Joubert Des Ouches (hereinafter “Joubert”) (US 2007/0157370).
Regarding claim 4, Castro teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as set forth above, and further teaches that the partial overlapping of the panels #14 has a stepped overlap, but is silent as to there being a half lap join, as Fig. 5C does not appear to show a clear half lap joint.
Joubert teaches a helmet with a shell having panels that are movable relative to one another, wherein the adjacent panels can have a half lap joint (see Fig. 17 of Joubert, wherein panels #9 are joined with a half lap joint).
Castro and Joubert teach analogous inventions in the field of helmet shells with panels movable relative to one another with an overlap therebetween. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilizes the half lap joint of Joubert at the seams #16 in Castro where the panels #14 partially overlap, in order to provide a shell that can maintain a thickness of material over the shell’s #11 overall body, thus keeping the level of protection optimal, whereas the thinner section #14y shown in Fig. 5C in Castro would be less protective than having a greater thickness of material, and further since the concept of a half-lap joint is very well-known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon in an art rejection above is deemed relevant in the field of flexible helmets with components that can move relative to one another.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732