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 .
Priority
The applicant is filed as a CIP of application of Application 16/023,832, and also claims priority benefit of foreign application TW107120239. The elected Species 2 (as depicted in Figs. 6-13), is not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 121 due to the reason as follows.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of priority applications, Application 16/023,832 and foreign application TW107120239, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for the elected Species 2 in this application. Therefore, the elected Species 2 does not meet the priority claims.
The effective filing date of the elected Species 2 is 05/02/2024.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The claim amendment has been entered.
The amendment to the specification will not be entered because: Applicant requires to replace the paragraph beginning at page 3, line 8; however, there is no such a paragraph in beginning at page 3, line 8.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending in the application. Claim 7 has been previously withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-6 are being treated on the merits. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 11/17/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 7, line 9, "FIG. 7" appears to read "FIG. 8".
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: "slide-facilitating member" in claims 1-4.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being which renders the claim indefinite. for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the shell has a casing and a buffer layer covered by the casing and provided with the inner surface", which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear which structure is the subject of "provided with the inner surface". Second, the claim has set forth the shell having an inner surface, the flexible frame having an inner surface, and the pad also having an inner surface. In addition, the buffer layer inherently has an inner surface as well. It is unclear which inner surface is being referred to by "the inner surface" in the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be wherein the shell has a casing and a buffer layer, the buffer layer is covered by the casing and has an inner surface.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise 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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chilson (US 2021/0015195 A1) in view of Garneau (US 2020/0008510 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chilson discloses a helmet (helmet 600; figs. 16-18; paras. 0087, 0092) comprising:
a shell (protective shell 610 and energy absorbing layer 620, together forming a shell; fig. 18; para. 0087) having an inner surface (inner surface 624; fig. 18; para. 0087);
a flexible frame (shear component 690, 690' formed of a silicone gel material or a polyurethane material, or a thermoplastic elastomer; figs. 16, 18; paras. 0087, 0092, 0096) directly attached to the inner surface of the shell (fig. 18; paras. 0087, 0092) and having an inner surface (configured to face comfort pad 688, 688'; figs. 16, 18; paras. 0088, 0092);
a pad (comfort pads 688, 688'; figs. 16, 18; paras. 0088, 0092) having an inner surface (configured to face a wearer's head; see fig. 18) and an outer surface (configured to face comfort pad 688'; see figs. 16, 18), the outer surface of the pad being directly attached to the inner surface of the flexible frame (see figs. 16, 18); and
wherein the shell has a casing (protective shell 610; figs. 16, 18; para. 0087) and a buffer layer (energy absorbing layer 620; figs. 16, 18; para. 0087) covered by the casing (figs. 16, 18; para. 0087) and provided with the inner surface (inner surface 624; figs. 16, 18; para. 0087), and
wherein the flexible frame (shear component 690, 690'; figs. 16, 18) is directly attached to the inner surface of the buffer layer (attached to inner surface 624; figs. 16, 18; paras. 0087, 0092).
Chilson does not disclose the helmet comprising a slide-facilitating member directly attached to the inner surface of the pad and serving to allow the shell and the flexible frame to slide with respect to a user's head wearing the helmet when the shell receives incoming impact. However, Garneau, in an analogous art, discloses a helmet (helmet 10; fig. 1; para. 0048) comprising: a shell (shell 13; figs. 1-2; para. 0050), a flexible frame (an attachment system 11 comprising straps and rigid attachment components for adjustably fasten the helmet around a user's head; figs. 1, 25; fig. 0049) attached to an inner surface of the shell (directly or indirectly; figs. 1, 25), a pad (cushioning pad 15; figs. 2, 13, 25; paras. 0053, 0074, 0092) attached to an inner surface of the flexible frame (directly or indirectly; figs. 2, 13, 25), and a slide-facilitating member (slippage pad 20 comprising a non-Newtonian polymer, in a gel or fluid form such as DCLAN™ gel which is a colloid, encapsulated by a membrane pocket; fig. 2; paras. 0053, 0055, 0058, 0065) directly attached to an inner surface of the pad (the slippage pad 20 directly mounted on the cushioning pad 15; figs. 14-15, 25; paras. 0074-0075, 0079, 0092) and serving to allow the shell and the flexible frame to slide with respect to a user’s head wearing it when the shell receives incoming impact (due to a sliding movement of a part of the slippage pad 20 relative to a concave surface of the inner liner 12; figs. 2, 13, 25; paras. 0054, 0062). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Chilson, with the helmet comprising a slide-facilitating member directly attached to the inner surface of the pad and serving to allow the shell and the flexible frame to slide with respect to a user's head wearing the helmet when the shell receives incoming impact as taught by Garneau, in order to perform management of the linear and rotational forces and movement that occur upon impact on the helmet by allow a relative slippage motion between the pad and the head of the wearer in quasi-translational manner (Garneau; paras. 0053-0054). Applicant, in p. 8, ll. 9-20 of the specification, has defined that the slide-facilitating member is a colloid wrapped by a covering. Therefore, the slide-facilitating member of Garneau meets the claimed requirement.
Regarding claim 2, Chilson and Garneau, in combination, disclose the helmet as claimed in claim 1. Garneau further teaches wherein the slide-facilitating member protrudes out of the inner surface of the pad (figs. 25-26; paras. 0079, 0094). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Chilson, with wherein the slide-facilitating member protrudes out of the inner surface of the pad as taught by Garneau, in order to facilitate a relative slippage motion between the pad and the head of the wearer in quasi-translational manner (Garneau; paras. 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 3, Chilson and Garneau, in combination, disclose the helmet as claimed in claim 1. Garneau further teaches wherein the slide-facilitating member is positioned in a recess (recess 16; fig. 26; paras. 0092, 0094) provided at the inner surface of the pad (the slippage pad 20 directly mounted on the cushioning pad 15; figs. 25-26; paras. 0075, 0079, 0092, 0094). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Chilson, with wherein the slide-facilitating member is positioned in a recess provided at the inner surface of the pad as taught by Garneau, in order to use a suitable approach to securely attach the slide-facilitating member to the pad.
Regarding claim 4, Chilson and Garneau, in combination, disclose the helmet as claimed in claim 1. Garneau further teaches wherein the slide-facilitating member is covered by the pad (from an upper side when the helmet is worn; figs. 1, 25-26; paras. 0079, 0094). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Chilson, with wherein the slide-facilitating member is covered by the pad as taught by Garneau, in order to facilitate a relative slippage motion between the pad and the head of the wearer in quasi-translational manner (Garneau; paras. 0053-0054).
Regarding claim 5, Chilson and Garneau, in combination, disclose the helmet as claimed in claim 1. Garneau further teaches wherein the slide-facilitating member (slippage pad 20; fig. 6B) has a covering (a membrane 50 forming a pocket and encapsulating the slip pad 20; fig. 6B; para. 0058) attached to the inner surface of the pad (figs. 1, 14-15, 25; paras. 0074-0075, 0079, 0092), and a slide-facilitating medium wrapped by the covering (a non-Newtonian polymer, in a gel or fluid form such as DCLAN™ gel, encapsulated by membrane 50; fig. 6B; paras. 0055, 0058, 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Chilson, with wherein the slide-facilitating member has a covering attached to the inner surface of the pad, and a slide-facilitating medium wrapped by the covering as taught by Garneau, in order to provide a suitable slide-facilitating member for effectively dissipating impact energy from a wearer's head.
Regarding claim 6, Chilson and Garneau, in combination, disclose the helmet as claimed in claim 5. As discussed for claim 5, Garneau teaches wherein the slide-facilitating medium is a colloid (a non-Newtonian polymer gel is a colloid). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the helmet as disclosed by Chilson, with wherein the slide-facilitating medium is a colloid as taught by Garneau, in order to use a suitable slide-facilitating medium for effectively dissipating impact energy from a wearer's head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are mostly moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
In response to Applicant's argument that Garneau only teaches that the slippage pad 20 is directly fixed to the inner liner 12, and not directly fixed to the cushioning pad 15, Applicant's direction is directed to paras. 0075, 0079 and 0092, which clearly describe that the slippage pad 20 may be directly mounted on the cushioning pad 15.
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732