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 Invention Group I, drawn to a helmet and Species I, Figures 1-2 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 5, and 8, “the protective layer” is read as “the outer protective layer”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “one or more connector elements…fixedly attaching the protective layer”. It is unclear how to define “fixedly attaching” as any attachment comprises firmly, securely joining between two elements. For the purpose of applying art, “fixedly attaching” is interpreted as attaching.
Claim 3 recites “particularly only by means of an interlocking connection”. It is unclear limitations following the term “particularly” is required by the claim or not. For the purpose of applying art, the limitations following the term “particularly” is not required by the claim.
Claim 5 recites “particular wherein the one or more connector elements rupture upon impact”. It is unclear limitations following the term “particularly” is required by the claim or not. For the purpose of applying art, the limitations following the term “particularly” is not required by the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the connector elements” in line 2. It is unclear which “connector elements” the Applicant wants to refer to as there are “one or more connector elements” in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the outer protective layer may laterally shift with respect to the energy absorbing layer…”. It is unclear the outer protective layer laterally shift with respect to the energy or the outer protective layer does not laterally shift with respect to the energy absorbing layer. For the purpose of applying art, the limitation is interpreted that the outer protective layer laterally shifts with respect to the energy absorbing layer.
Claim 7 recites “particularly wherein upon impact…” in line 5. It is unclear limitations following the term “particularly” is required by the claim or not. For the purpose of applying art, the limitations following the term “particularly” is not required by the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the openings” in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear which “openings” the Applicant wants to refer to as there are “one or more openings” in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the connector elements” in lines 2 and 4. It is unclear which “connector elements” the Applicant wants to refer to as there are “one or more connector elements” in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the one or more connector elements are of the same material than the energy absorbing layer”. It is unclear the one or more connector elements are the same material or different material from the energy absorbing layer. For the purpose of applying art, the one or more connector elements are interpreted to be the same material as the energy absorbing layer.
Claim 11 recites “the connector element” in line 4 and “the opening” in line 4. It is unclear which “connector element” and which “opening” the Applicant refers to as there are more than one connector elements and more than one openings in claim 1.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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 1-5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marzec (US 2013/0000015).
Regarding claim 1, Marzec teaches a helmet comprising: an energy absorbing layer (fig. 2, cushioning members 40 and member 45), an outer protective layer (fig. 2, shell 20), an intermediate layer (fig. 2, layers 31, 32) arranged between the energy-absorbing layer and the protective layer, one or more connector elements (fig. 2, members 40) extending from the energy-absorbing layer through one or more openings (fig. 2, para. [0029], cut-outs in the layers 31, 32) in the intermediate layer to the protective layer and fixedly attaching the protective layer with the energy-absorbing layer (fig. 4, para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, 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 form by adhesive, hot melt, glue).
Regarding claim 3, Marzec teaches the outer protective layer is attached to the one or more connector elements by means of an interlocking connection, particularly only by means of an interlocking connection (para. [0038], rivets or snaps can be used).
Regarding claim 4, Marzec teaches the one or more connector elements are integrally formed with the energy absorbing layer (fig. 2, elements 40 and 45 are formed into a whole unit).
Regarding claim 5, Marzec 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 (para. [0039], [0040], during a hard impact to the shell, the members 40 are pulled away from the shell) particularly wherein the one or more connector elements rupture upon impact.
Regarding claim 7, Marzec teaches the one or more connector elements are configured to elastically deform (para. [0036]) upon exposure to an impact force on the outer protective layer such that the outer protective layer may laterally shift with respect to the energy absorbing layer, particularly wherein upon impact the one or more connector elements remain attached to the outer protective layer and the energy absorbing layer (para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 11, 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).
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzec (US 2013/0000015), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Halldin (US 2013/0042397).
Regarding claim 6, Marzec does not clearly teach upon impact the 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Halldin teaches upon impact the connector elements (figs. 3-4, elements 4a, 4b) bend or shift toward an edge of the one or more openings of the intermediate layer (fig. 1, openings in the layers 5,2 to receive portions 9), such that the one or more connector elements rupture at the edge of the one or more openings (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Marzec with the teaching that upon impact the 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 as taught by Halldin so that a portion of the fixation members ruptures, absorbing energy plastically, while another portion of the fixation members deforms and absorbs forces elastically (Halldin, para. [0048]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzec (US 2013/0000015).
Regarding claim 8, Marzec does not clearly teach the 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, Marzec teaches the openings of the intermediate layer comprise different sizes (fig. 2, the openings in the layers 31, 32 at the front of the helmet are different than the openings in the layers 31, 32 at the sides); and in any helmet, cushioning members may be provided in one, two, three, or more different shapes, including both shapes that are columnar and shapes that are non-columnar (para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Marzec with the teaching that the 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 so that the cushioning members provide different protection for the user’s head depending on the intended use of the helmet.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzec (US 2013/0000015), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schimpf (US 2012/0060251).
Regarding claim 10, Marzec does not clearly teach the one or more connector elements are of the same material than the energy absorbing layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schimpf teaches the one or more connector elements (figs. 14, 16, element 22) are of the same material than the energy absorbing layer (figs. 14, 16, element 22 is an elevation of the insert 8).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Marzec with the teaching that the one or more connector elements are of the same material than the energy absorbing layer as suggested by Schimpf for the benefit of facilitating in manufacturing the energy absorbing layer and reducing or preventing angular acceleration introduced by a blow (Schimpf, para. [0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 7:30 AM-4:30 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3732