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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, lines 2-3, “the connector elements” is read as “the one or more connector elements”.
In claim 8, line 3, “the openings” is read as “the one or more openings”.
In claim 8, line 4, “the connector elements” is read as “the one or more connector elements”.
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 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 use the word “means,” and are 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: “means of an interlocking connection” in claim 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 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.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf (US 2012/0060251).
Regarding claim 1, Schimpf teaches a helmet comprising an energy absorbing layer (fig. 12, layer 8), an outer protective layer (fig. 12, layers 1 and 7), an intermediate layer (fig. 12, layer 10) arranged between the energy-absorbing layer and the outer protective layer, one or more connector elements (fig. 12, elements 20) extending from the energy-absorbing layer through one or more openings in the intermediate layer to the outer protective layer (fig. 12) and attaching the outer protective layer with the energy absorbing layer (fig. 12).
Schimpf does not clearly teach in fig. 12 the one or more connector elements are monolithically formed with the energy-absorbing layer.
However, Schimpf teaches in fig. 16, the one or more connector elements (fig. 16, elevation 22) are monolithically formed with the energy-absorbing layer (8)(para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the one or more connector elements in fig. 12 to be monolithically formed with the energy-absorbing layer as suggested in fig. 16 for the benefit of providing a continuous mass which distributes loads evenly.
Regarding claim 5, Schimpf teaches the one or more connector elements are configured to fail upon exposure to an impact force on the outer protective layer such that the outer protective layer disconnects at least partially or area by area from the energy-absorbing layer (fig. 13, para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Schimpf teaches upon impact the one or more connector elements bend or shift toward an edge of the one or more openings of the intermediate layer, such that the one or more connector elements rupture at the edge of the one or more openings (fig. 13, para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Schimpf teaches the one or more connector elements are configured to elastically deform upon exposure to an impact force on the outer protective layer such that the outer protective layer shifts laterally with respect to the energy-absorbing layer (fig. 13, para. [0017], the connecting means is a spring shock absorber system, which returns the system to the starting position; or the connecting means can be rubber bands).
Regarding claim 8, Schimpf does not clearly teach the one or more openings of the intermediate layer comprise different sizes, such that the connector elements extending through the openings differ in terms of a rupturing force at which the connector elements fail.
However, Schimpf teaches different shapes and sizes the connector elements (fig. 12, connecting elements 20; fig. 14, connecting elements 22; fig. 16, connecting elements 22) and different shapes and sizes of the corresponding openings in the intermediate layer (figs. 12, 14, 16, openings in the layer 10 have different sizes).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Schimpf with the teaching that the one or more openings of the intermediate layer comprise different sizes, such that the connector elements extending through the openings differ in terms of a rupturing force at which the connector elements fail as suggested in figs. 12, 14, 16 for the benefit of reducing or preventing different angular acceleration introduced by a blow, which suits user’s needs.
Regarding claim 10, Schimpf teaches the one or more connector elements consist of the same material as the energy-absorbing layer (fig. 16, para. [0060]).
Claims 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schimpf (US 2012/0060251), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marzec (US 2013/0000015).
Regarding claim 2, Schimpf does not teach the outer protective layer is attached to the one or more connector elements by means of a substance-to-substance bond between the one or more connector elements and the outer protective layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marzec teaches the outer protective layer is attached to the one or more connector elements by means of a substance-to-substance bond between the one or more connector elements and the outer protective layer (para. [0038], the connection is formed by adhesive, hot melt, glue).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Schimpf with the teaching that the outer protective layer is attached to the one or more connector elements by means of a substance-to-substance bond between the one or more connector elements and the outer protective layer as taught by Marzec for the benefit of providing high strength, durable connection between the outer protective layer and the energy absorbing layer (Marzec, para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Schimpf does not teach the outer protective layer is attached to the one or more connector elements by means of an interlocking connection.
However, Marzec teaches the outer protective layer is attached to the one or more connector elements by means of an interlocking connection (para. [0038], rivets or snaps can be used).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Schimpf with the teaching that the outer protective layer is attached to the one or more connector elements by means of an interlocking connection as taught Marzec for the benefit of providing detachable connection between the outer protective layer and the energy absorbing layer (Marzec, para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Schimpf does not teach a cross-sectional circumference of the each connector element of the one or more connector elements between the intermediate layer and the outer protective layer is greater than a cross-sectional circumference of said connector element at the opening of the one or more openings through which said connector element extends.
However, Marzec teaches a cross-sectional circumference of each connector element between the intermediate layer and the outer protective layer is greater than a cross-sectional circumference of the connector element at the opening through the connector element extends (fig. 5F, the cross sectional circumference of the connector decreases from the top to the bottom, while the top is connected to the outer protective layer and the middle portion of the connector extends through the opening in the intermediate layer).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the connector element of Schimpf so that a cross-sectional circumference of the each connector element of the one or more connector elements between the intermediate layer and the outer protective layer is greater than a cross-sectional circumference of said connector element at the opening of the one or more openings through which said connector element extends as suggested by Marzec in fig. 5F for the benefit of so that strength characteristics vary because of varying cross sections, which initiates rupturing as the apexes of the connector element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 08/05/2016, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
