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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 2015/0345585 to Gaudet in view of US Patent 2020/0221807 to Morgan et al.
Re: claims 1, 7, 10, and 11. Gaudet shows in figure 16c and discloses in paragraph [0089] a shock absorbing device for or capable of absorbing tangential impacts on helmets as functionally recited, comprising a hermetically closed container containing in turn a shock absorbing fluid, wherein the shock absorbing device further comprises a single interference element, as labeled, partly inserted and mobile both perpendicularly and tangentially inside the container so that a head thereof is immersed in the shock absorbing fluid as shown since Gaudet explains in paragraph [0089] that the device has a configuration for reducing ANY vibration which would include those requiring the interference element to move both perpendicularly and tangentially, wherein movement of the head immersed in the shock absorbing fluid generates
[AltContent: textbox (Interference element
(head))][AltContent: textbox (Lid)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Folds)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
213
183
media_image1.png
Greyscale
shear and compression stresses in the shock absorbing fluid to absorb energy of impacts since the interference element is flexibly attached to the surrounding container by an elastomeric diaphragm and compliant dampers that enable the interference element to be mobile in the container both perpendicularly and tangentially in response to such forces on the interference element.
Gaudet is silent with regard the shock absorbing fluid being a non-Newtonian type of fluid as best understood.
Morgan et al. teach in the abstract the use of a shock absorbing device including a non-Newtonian type of fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shock absorbing fluid of Gaudet to have been of a non-Newtonian type, in view of the teachings of Morgan et al., in order to provide a means of better dissipating impact energy.
Re: claim 3. Gaudet, as modified, teaches in figure 16c of Gaudet wherein the container comprises an elastically deformable wall 1684 and wherein the interference element is made to pass through the elastically deformable wall as shown.
Re: claim 4. Gaudet, as modified, teaches in figure 16c of Gaudet wherein the elastically deformable wall 1684 comprises a plurality of folds, as labeled, concentric with each other and with the interference element as shown.
Re: claims 5 and 15. Gaudet, as modified, teaches in figure 16c of Gaudet wherein the elastically deformable wall is comprised in a removable lid, as labeled, of the container. Examiner notes that the lid is a separate piece that is removable with adequate force.
Re: claim 6. Gaudet (embodiment of figure 16c), as modified, is silent with regard to a clamp member configured to be inserted around the interference element outside the container.
Gaudet (embodiment of figure 14a) teaches the use of a clamping member 1194 (including the base portion of which) configured to be inserted around an interference element 1357 outside a container shown surrounding the interference element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shock absorbing device of Gaudet, as modified, to have included a clamping member, in view of the teachings of Gaudet figure 14a, in order to provide a means of connecting the interference element to a system needing shock absorbing protection.
Re: claim 8. Gaudet, as modified, teaches in figure 16c of Gaudet wherein the head of the interference element comprises an end wall shown at the bottom of the head equipped with a plurality of protuberances 1615.
Re: claim 14. Gaudet, as modified, teaches in figure 16c of Gaudet wherein the container comprises an elastically deformable wall 1684 and wherein the interference element is made to pass through the elastically deformable wall as shown.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the interference element being mobile both perpendicularly and tangentially, Examiner notes that Gaudet explains in paragraph [0089] that the device has a configuration for reducing ANY vibration which would include those requiring the interference element to move both perpendicularly and tangentially and that such directional movements result in the generation of shear and compressive stresses in the fluid. Accordingly, the rejections using Gaudet have been maintained. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the most recent amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
mmb
May 2, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights