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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 02/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are presented.
Claim 1 is presented in independent form and is amended.
Dependent claims 8, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 are amended. Claim 21 is newly presented.
The present Office action treats claims 1-3 and 5-21 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks of 02/12/2026 (see p. 5-12 of the reply) are fully considered .
Regarding §112 (p. 5-6): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections as applied in the previous Office action. It is noted, however, that Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 14.
Regarding §103 (p. 6-12): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (emphasis and emphasis provided by the Applicant):
...Soibelman describes a head where insert system comprising four layers, two outer layers and two inner layers, namely outer layer 210, inner stabilizing layer 220, inner layer of absorptive padding 230 and outer layer closed cell rubber 240, see annotated FIG. 2 of Soibelman below.
Additionally, in Soibelman there is optionally a further layer including phase change material. However, the further layer may only be inserted between outer layer 210 and outer layer 240, see paragraph [0028]. Hence, the layer including phase change material is not an outer layer.
Therefore, Soibelman's system differs from the defined head protection pad as the outer layer is designed as a cooling layer having a cooling medium integrated into the outer layer, and wherein the outer layer is formed from textile material. This is acknowledged in the Office Action.
If one of ordinary skill in the art would apply the teaching of Ryan, a textile cooling layer to Soibelman's system, the cooling layer would have to be inserted between outer layer 210 and outer layer 240 as required by Soibelman, see paragraph [0028].
There is no teaching or suggestion for deviating from Soibelman's headwear insert system.
On page 6, last paragraph of the Office Action, it is stated, "It 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 to have modified the pad of Soibelman such that it is provided with an additional layer designed as a cooling layer and having a paraffin cooling medium being integrated thereinto between 240 and 230 in order to afford thermal regulation to the pad, as suggested by Soibelman (paras 26 and 32). In adopting the modification, said additional layer - i.e. the additional layer between 240 and 230- is an outer layer being designed as a cooling layer and having a paraffin cooling medium integrated into the outer layer; and wherein the spacer layer 220 is provided, which is arranged between the inner layer 210 and the outer layer (i.e. the additional layer between 240 and 230)."
However, the additional layer between 240 and 230 is sandwiched. Therefore, it is impossible that the additional sandwich layer could be an outer layer.
In view of this, one of ordinary skill in the art applying the teachings of Ryan to Soibelman would not have arrived at the head protection pad specifically defined in claim 1.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument is that if a given layer is sandwiched between other layers, it is “impossible” for that layer to be an outer layer (p. 10 line 9 of the reply).
This argument is not persuasive.
As provided for in MPEP 2111.01, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with and in light of the specification and the BRI doesn't mean the broadest possible interpretation. The meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings.
It is noted that Applicant’s argument that an outer layer cannot be sandwiched between other layers is not consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. As shown in Fig. 4 as filed, “head protection pads 1 are attached to an inner side 8.1 of a helmet or a helmet cover” the helmet or helmet cover of Fig. 4 is provided in a covering relationship to a head protection pad and its constituent layers. Fig. 2b shows cover 3 and its outer layer 4 and outer surface 4.2 as surrounding the base body in the manner described in the specification: “the base body is surrounded on all sides of the cover 3” (p. 3 lines 19-20) such that the outer layer 4 and its outer surface 4.2 are provided within the helmet or helmet cover of Fig. 4 such that the outer layer and its outer surface are sandwiched between at least the base body and the helmet/helmet cover. Therefore, according to the disclosure as filed, a given outer layer can indeed be sandwiched between plural layers.
Moreover, Applicant’s argument is furthermore not consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “outer” means “1. situated on or toward the outside.... 2. situated farther out or farther from the center.” (outer. (n.d.) Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. (2010). Retrieved April 10 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/outer) and “Situated further out than another (distinguished as inner), exterior; removed from the centre or inside; relatively far out. Also: situated on the outside, outward, external; of or relating to the outside.” (Oxford English Dictionary, “outer (adj.), sense I.2,” March 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1344236767.) such that a given layer could be an “outer” layer if it is situated toward an outside and/or farther out or farther from a center and/or further out than another layer and/or removed from a center and/or inside and/or situated outward of another layer regardless of whether it is “sandwiched” as argued.
Therefore, in applying the modification as set forth in the Office action of 10/23/2025 (see p. 6-7 thereof), the additional layer—i.e. the additional layer between 240 and 230—is an outer layer as claimed; it is noted the additional layer of the modified Soibelman, as applied in the rejection of 10/23/2025 and again presented in the present rejection, is provided further out than one or more of layer(s) 210, 220, and/or 230 and is also situated outward of one or more of layer(s) 210, 220, and/or 230.
Applicant further argues (emphasis provided by the Applicant):
Claim 7 defines a spacer layer formed from a plurality of sticks or hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute a angle to each other, which are aligned transversely to said outer layer.
The Office Action states the limitations would be obvious in view of Soibelman based on the disclosure of hook and loop fasteners in paragraph [0025] for the purpose of removably coupling layers.
However, as stated in paragraph [0025], the first side surface 110 and second side surface 120 may be stitched together along a seam 130 that follows a contour of the outer edge of the insert system 100 as shown in FIG. 1 below.
Accordingly, seam 130 which may be textile stitching, hook and loop fasteners, or other closure mechanism cannot be the defined spacer layer which is required to be arranged between said inner layer and said outer layer as defined in claim 1 as well as to be formed from a plurality of sticks or hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle a to each other, which are aligned transversely to said outer layer.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because the argument is not commensurate with claim language, nor is it commensurate with the rejection as applied.
Claim 7 requires “the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of sticks or hair”, and parent claim 1 requires “a spacer layer...arranged between the inner layer and the outer layer”. However, no limitation asserts that the plurality of sticks or hair, specifically, is arranged between inner and outer layers. In other words, claim 7 states the spacer layer is arranged between the inner layer and the outer layer and further states the spacer layer if formed from a plurality of sticks or hair but does not state that any specific element(s) of the spacer layer is arranged between the inner and outer layers such that Applicant’s argument that “hook and loop fasteners...cannot be the defined spacer layer which is required to be arranged between said inner layer and said outer layer as defined in claim 1” (emphasis provided by Examiner) is not commensurate with claim language if only because no plurality of sticks or hair is/are claimed as being provided between inner and outer layers in claim 7. It is noted a given layer can be both “formed from a plurality of sticks or hair” and also comprise other structure that is not formed from a plurality of sticks or hair in that the claimed spacer layer as claimed does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. Moreover, the argument is not commensurate with the rejection as applied in that the rejection does not state any plurality of sticks and/or hair as being arranged between inner and outer layers as argued. Rather, the rejection states “It would have been obvious...to have modified...Soibelman such that its spacer layer is provided with a plurality of hooks” wherein “the plurality of hooks is a plurality of sticks” (the paragraph spanning p. 10-11 of the Office action of 10/23/2025).
Applicant further argues:
Claim 8 defines that the sticks or hair have a surface density of 2,500 sticks or hair per cm The Office Action acknowledges Solbelman does not disclose the indicated limitation. Therefore, reference is made to Stabelfeldt and Buchalter.
First, it is respectfully submitted that only hindsight motivation utilizing claim 8 as a guide would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to require the spacer layer to have a particular surface density of 2500 sticks or hair per cm.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if because the conclusion of obviousness (see p. 14-15 of the Office action of 10/23/2025) takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure; it is noted that Applicant does not specifically argue any specific fact and/or reasoning stated in the Office action such that Applicant’s argument amounts to a general allegation that hindsight motivation is utilized without specifically pointing why the Applicant argues that the conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight reasoning.
Applicant further argues:
By virtue of its ultimate dependency upon claim 1, the spacer layer which includes the required surface density of 2500 sticks or hair per cm2 is required to be arranged between the inner layer and outer layer.
However, in Stabelfeldt which is cited to teach the indicated surface density, the Office Action references the hooks between web layer 12 and foam layer 91 which are fixed to each other via a hook-like connection layer.
However, web layer 12 is not a outer layer, it has hooks on both sides.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because layer 12 of Stabelfeldt is not relied upon to be an outer layer, nor does the Office action state that layer 12 of Stabelfeldt is an outer layer.
Applicant further argues:
Still further, the hook-like connect layer is applied to connect the web layer 12 and foam layer 91 and not define a space between both layers.
Moreover, as pointed above with respect to claim 7, Soibelman's inner layer 110 and outer layer 120 do not have a space in between. They are sewed together by the seam around the outer edge in order to integrally fix the inner and outer layer.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if Stabelfeldt is not relied upon to define a space between layers. In addition, element 110 of Soibelman is not relied upon to be an inner layer nor is it described as such in the Office action or, indeed, in Soibelman, which states element 110 is a “side surface”. In like manner, element 120 is not relied upon to be an outer layer nor is it described as such in the Office action or, indeed, in Soibelman, which states element 120 is a “side surface”; para 25.
Applicant further argues:
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would not learn to form the head protection pad according to claim 8 which requires a spacer layer provided between the inner layer and outer layer as well as to have the required surface density of 2500 sticks or hair per square centimeter.
In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the references cannot render the invention set forth in independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 7 and 8, obvious. The remaining dependent claims are also respectfully not obvious as they depend, directly or indirectly, upon independent claim 1.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive because the combined references do meet claim limitations, as set forth in the previous Office action (see p. 10-11 and 14-15, respectively, of the Office action of 10/23/2025). Applicant’s specific arguments directed to claims 1, 7, and 8 are unpersuasive, as is addressed in the Examiner’s replies thereto hereinabove. The further arguments on p. 12 lines 6-13 of the reply are not persuasive if only because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant further argues:
New claim 21 is added herewith and further defines the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of hairs arranged parallel to each other. None of the cited references teach or suggest the same.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 14 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 14 lines 1-3 recites “An impact protection waistcoat or and impact protection trousers comprising”. Usage of the term “or and” renders the claim indefinite insofar as it is not clear whether what is claimed is a waistcoat, a trousers, a waistcoat or trousers, or a waistcoat and/or trousers. For the purpose of applying art, the phrase “An impact protection waistcoat or and impact protection trousers comprising” is interpreted as if it reads --An impact protection waistcoat or impact protection trousers comprising--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908, previously cited] in view of [Ryan, US 2018/0242665, previously cited and provided on the IDS of 04/04/2024].
Regarding claim 1:
Soibelman discloses (Fig. 2):
A head protection (“for protection”; para 3) pad 200 for insertion into a helmet (para 44), comprising:
a base body 230 made of padding material (“padding 230”; para 30) and a cover 210, 220, 240 (i.e. the combined 210, 220, and 240) which at least partially surrounds the base body (para 26; Fig. 2),
wherein the cover 210, 220, 240 has an inner layer 210, and wherein a spacer layer 220 is provided.
Soibelman does not expressly disclose wherein the cover has an outer layer and at least one inner layer, the outer layer being designed as a cooling layer and having a cooling medium integrated into the outer layer, wherein the outer layer is formed from textile material; and wherein a spacer layer is provided, which is arranged between the inner layer and the outer layer.
However, and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman teaches providing an additional layer designed as a cooling layer and having a cooling medium integrated thereinto: “One or more additional layers of material may be inserted between layer 210 and layer 240 such as, but not limited to, one or more thermal regulation material layers” (para 26); “Such additional materials which may be placed between layer 210 and layer 240 may include one or more thermal regulation material layers including...various phase change materials including hydrocarbon paraffins” (para 32) further wherein “Each of the layers 210, 220, 230, 240 and any additional layers may be arranged in any order” (para 27) such that Soibelman teaches providing a layer designed as a cooling layer and having a cooling medium —i.e. paraffin phase change material—thereinto as an layer between 210 and 240 which includes a layer order wherein said thermal regulation paraffin phase change material layer is provided between 240 and base body 230, in which case said layer designed as a cooling layer and having a cooling medium thereinto is arranged between inner layer 210 and said layer designed as a cooling layer and having a cooling medium thereinto.
It 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 to have modified the pad of Soibelman such that it is provided with an additional layer designed as a cooling layer and having a paraffin cooling medium being integrated thereinto between 240 and 230 in order to afford thermal regulation to the pad, as suggested by Soibelman (paras 26 and 32). In adopting the modification, said additional layer—i.e. the additional layer between 240 and 230—is an outer layer being designed as a cooling layer and having a paraffin cooling medium integrated into the outer layer; and wherein the spacer layer 220 is provided, which is arranged between the inner layer 210 and the outer layer (i.e. the additional layer between 240 and 230).
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the outer layer is formed from textile material.
Ryan teaches a layer formed from textile material (“textile fabric[]”; Abstract) appropriate for thermal regulation in an apparel context (“to cool a wearer of an article of clothing”; para 32) and for use “inside...a helmet” (para 77) wherein the layer is designed as a cooling layer (“to cool a wearer of an article of clothing”; para 32) and having a cooling medium (“Microcapsules...have a core composition that includes a phase changing material (PCM) encapsulated within a polymer wall with an outer shell”; Abstract) integrated into (Abstract; para 77) the layer, wherein the layer is formed from textile material (Abstract; para 77).
Ryan further teaches the layer is appropriate “to cool a wearer of an article of clothing” (para 32) and “When the capsules are incorporated into the textile material or textile fabric the benefit of wicking moisture away from the wearer while providing a cooling effect is achieved” (para 77).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that its outer layer is formed from textile material and its paraffin cooling medium is integrated into the outer layer in the form of microcapsules in order to provide both moisture-wicking and also a cooling effect, as taught by Ryan (paras 32 and 77). One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Soibelman teaches a motivation to provide both (i.e. a the “combination” of para 26) moisture-wicking and thermal regulation properties to one or more layers between 210 and 240 thereof: “One or more additional layers of material may be inserted between layer 210 and layer 240 such as, but not limited to, one or more thermal regulation material layers, one or more moisture wicking material layers, one or more moisture absorption material layers, one or more comfort regulation material layers or any combination thereof” (para 26 of Soibelman).
Regarding claim 2:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Soibelman further discloses wherein the inner layer is formed from textile material (“polyester...mesh” with “threads crossing” (para 28) such that it is formed from a textile material).
The modified Soibelman further meets the limitation wherein the outer layer is formed from textile material (see above treatment of claim 1 where Soibelman is modified such that the limitation “outer layer is formed from textile material” is met).
Accordingly, the modified Soibelman meets the limitation wherein the outer layer and the inner layer are formed from textile material.
Regarding claim 3:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman further meets the limitation wherein paraffin is provided as the cooling medium (i.e. as modified, the outer layer being designed as a cooling layer and having a paraffin cooling medium integrated into the outer layer as set forth in above treatment of claim 1), the paraffin being integrated into the outer layer in the form of microcapsules (i.e. as modified, the paraffin cooling medium is integrated into the outer layer in the form of microcapsules as set forth in above treatment claim 1) or being absorbed by the outer layer.
Regarding claim 5:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer is directly adjacent to the outer layer.
Rather, in the modified Soibelman as set forth in above addressing of claim 1: the spacer layer 220 is directly adjacent base body 230 (as in Soibelman Fig. 2), and the outer layer is the additional layer between 230 and 240 (refer to above treatment of claim 1) such that base body 230 is interposed between outer layer and spacer layer 220.
Nevertheless and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman as embodied in paras 26-27 teaches providing plural additional layers between 210 and 240 and arranged in any order: “One or more additional layers of material may be inserted between layer 210 and layer 240 such as, but not limited to, one or more thermal regulation material layers, one or more moisture wicking material layers, one or more moisture absorption material layers, one or more comfort regulation material layers or any combination thereof. Each of the layers 210, 220, 230, 240 and any additional layers may be arranged in any order and may comprise any of the aforementioned materials.”
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that it is provided with yet another additional layer—arranged between the inner layer 210 and the outer layer—and provided directly adjacent the outer layer in order to afford moisture absorption and/or comfort regulation to the pad, as suggested by Soibelman (paras 26-27).
In adopting the modification, claim 5 limitations would be met insofar as said yet another additional layer provided directly adjacent the outer layer would be a spacer layer directly adjacent to the outer layer further wherein said yet another additional layer would be the spacer layer arranged between the inner layer and the outer layer of claim 1. In other words, in adopting the modification, the yet another layer would be the spacer layer of claim 1, and layer 220 of Soibelman would be an extraneous layer.
Regarding claim 7:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of sticks or hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle α to each other, which are aligned transversely to the outer layer.
However and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman teaches providing a layer with a plurality of sticks (i.e. hooks of “hook and loop fasteners”; para 25) for the purpose of removably coupling layers (para 25).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that its spacer layer is provided with a plurality of hooks in order to permit the spacer layer to be removably coupled to a corresponding loops portion of another layer, as suggested by Soibelman (para 25). In adopting the modification, the limitation “wherein the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of sticks or hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle α to each other, which are aligned transversely to the outer layer” would be met insofar as the plurality of hooks is a plurality of sticks; although the modified Soibelman would not comprise hair as claimed, it is noted that the hair is presented in the alternative, and the modified Soibelman meets the limitation in that its spacer layer is formed from a plurality of sticks as described above; the claimed “hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle α to each other, which are aligned transversely to the outer layer” is presented in the alternative.
Regarding claim 12:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation A system, comprising: the head protection pad according to claim 1 and a helmet cover, wherein the head protection pad is attached to an inner side of the helmet cover.
However and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman teaches a system comprising a head protection pad 410 and a helmet cover (“helmet[]”; para 44) wherein the head protection pad is attached to an inner side of the helmet cover (“secured within a headwear article 420...along the interior of the headwear article 420...any position along the interior of the headwear article may be utilized as the desired position 430 based upon the need of the user and the given headwear article 420. Further, while in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 4A & 4C the headwear article 420 is shown to be an athletic cap, it is to be understood that any suitable type of headwear article 420 may be utilized including, but not limited to, athletic caps, cowboy hats, fashion headdress, construction hats, automotive helmets, sports helmets” (para 43-44).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that it is attached to an inner side of a helmet cover such that a system, comprising: the head protection pad according to claim 1 and a helmet cover, wherein the head protection pad is attached to an inner side of the helmet cover is provided in order to yield the predictable result of a system whose helmet is configured to protect a skull of a wearer and whose pad is configured to protect the wearer from sweat.
Regarding claim 13:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation A padded helmet cover, comprising: the head protection pad according to claim 1 attached in a helmet cover.
However and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman teaches a system comprising a head protection pad 410 and a helmet cover (“helmet[]”; para 44) wherein the head protection pad is attached in a helmet cover (“secured within a headwear article 420...along the interior of the headwear article 420...any position along the interior of the headwear article may be utilized as the desired position 430 based upon the need of the user and the given headwear article 420. Further, while in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 4A & 4C the headwear article 420 is shown to be an athletic cap, it is to be understood that any suitable type of headwear article 420 may be utilized including, but not limited to, athletic caps, cowboy hats, fashion headdress, construction hats, automotive helmets, sports helmets” (para 43-44).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that it is attached in a helmet cover such that padded helmet cover comprising the head protection pad according to claim 1 attached in a helmet cover is provided in order to yield the predictable result of a system whose helmet cover is configured to protect a skull of a wearer and whose pad is configured to protect the wearer from sweat.
Regarding claim 15:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman further meets the limitation wherein paraffin is provided as the cooling medium (i.e. as modified, the outer layer being designed as a cooling layer and having a paraffin cooling medium integrated into the outer layer as set forth in above treatment of claim 1), the paraffin being integrated into the outer layer in the form of microcapsules (i.e. as modified, the paraffin cooling medium is integrated into the outer layer in the form of microcapsules as set forth in above treatment claim 1) or being absorbed by the outer layer.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908] and [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Blythe, US 2021/0274856, previously cited].
Regarding claim 6:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer is interwoven with the outer layer and/or that the spacer layer is interwoven with the inner layer.
The spacer layer 220 is directly adjacent the inner layer 210 (Fig. 2); however, Soibelman does not state the two are interwoven with each other. Soibelman as embodied in Fig. 1 and para 25 teaches “The first side surface 110 and second side surface 120 (and any materials therebetween) may be stitched together along a seam 130 that follows a contour of the outer edge of the insert system 100 as shown in FIG. 1. The seam 130 may be at least partly defined by textile stitching” such that Soibelman at least teaches stitching plural layers together. However, Soibelman is silent as to any given layer being interwoven with any other given layer.
However, Blythe teaches a “double-layer construct” (Abstract) appropriate for apparel configured to cover a wearer’s head “headbands, caps (skull caps), hats” (para 6) wherein two layers of the double-layer construct are interwoven with each other: “outer and inner layers are interwoven at at least a portion of their interface”; para 8.
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that its spacer layer is interwoven with its inner layer in order to yield the predictable result of the combined spacer layer and inner layer being secured to each other via their being interwoven at at least a portion of the interface between the spacer layer and the inner layer.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908] and [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of [Stabelfeldt, US 2007/0098953, previously cited] and [Buchalter, US 2020/0197560, previously cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 7, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein a surface density of 2500 sticks or hair per cm2 is provided.
However, Stabelfeldt teaches sticks (“hooks”; para 2) appropriate for clothing and wearing apparel (“diapers, shoes, disposable gowns, etc.” (para 2)) wherein a surface density of “from about 60 hooks/cm2 to about 1600 hooks/cm2” is provided. Stabelfeldt does not provide upper and/or lower boundaries for what it means to be “about 1600 hooks/cm2”; however, the claimed 2500 sticks per cm2 is about 1600 hooks/cm2; and the claimed 2500 sticks per cm2 is close to 1600 hooks/cm2. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2144.05 which states in relevant part “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”.
Buchalter teaches sticks (“hooks” in a “fastening system”; para 31) for wearing apparel (“Diapers...worn”; para 81) wherein peel force of a fastening system comprising said sticks is influenced by stick density: “advantageous to increase the peel force...This may be achieved by increasing the area of the hooks in the fastening system”; para 82.
Because Buchalter is concerned with desired peel strength of sticks of wearing apparel and because Stabelfeldt provides a range (i.e. about 1600 hooks/cm2) encompassing and/or close to the claimed limitation, the claimed surface density is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed surface density value through routine experimentation in order to provide desired pad properties. The claimed surface density is merely an optimum or workable surface density and the surface density is expected to affect peel strength of the fastening that holds together adjacent layers of the pad.
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that a surface density of 2500 sticks per cm2 is provided in order to permit the spacer layer to be removably coupled to a corresponding loops portion of another layer such that they are not readily separated from one another unless a peel strength afforded by the 2500 sticks per cm2 is exceeded.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908] and [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Smolko, US 2006/0201187, previously cited].
Regarding claim 9:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer has a thickness of at least 5 mm.
However, Smolko teaches a layer (a layer of “porous material”; para 46) appropriate for a “cooling garment” (para 68) wherein the layer has a thickness “in the range from about 0.001'' (0.025 mm) to 0.25'' (6.4 mm). The porous matrices can...provide structural rigidity, scratch resistance, and/or mechanical integrity” (para 48).
Because Smolko is concerned with desired structural rigidity, scratch resistance, and mechanical integrity of a layer and provides a range (i.e. from about 0.025 mm to about 6.4 mm) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed spacer layer thickness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired pad properties. The claimed spacer layer thickness is merely an optimum or workable thickness and the thickness of the spacer layer is expected to affect structural rigidity, scratch resistance, and mechanical integrity of the spacer layer and/or of the pad.
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that the spacer layer has a thickness of at least 5 mm in order to yield a pad and/or spacer layer whose structural rigidity, scratch resistance, and mechanical integrity afforded thereby is desirable to some user(s) of the pad and/or spacer layer. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Soibelman is directed to maintaining adequate “structural integrity” of the pad (para 27 of Soibelman).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908] and [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of [Goldfine, US 2002/0112499, previously cited].
Regarding claim 10:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer has a specific weight of 200 g/m2.
However, Goldfine teaches a “cooling fabric 10 and the evaporative cooling fabric 38 may be cut in any desired shape to form articles of clothing that are fastenable against or around the body, or any body portion, of the user” (para 69) wherein a layer 12 thereof has a specific weight of “about 4 ounces per square yard (about 135.6 grams per square meter) to about 12 ounces per square yard (about 406.9 grams per square meter)” (para 31) wherein “Evaporative cooling performance of the evaporative cooling fabric 10 has been found to be generally adequate when the face fabric layer 12 has a weight ranging from about 4 ounces per square yard (about 135.6 grams per square meter) to about 12 ounces per square yard (about 406.9 grams per square meter). The weight of a particular fabric is highly dependent upon both the amount and nature of fibers used in the fabric and the degree of compression of the fibers within the fabric. Enhanced compression and consequent enhanced fiber density tends to reduce the amount of water that can be held within a particular fabric, though sufficient fiber density and compression is necessary to account for the surface tension of the water and allow for retention of water” (para 31).
Because Goldfine is concerned with desired cooling performance and water retention of a layer and provides a range (i.e. about 135.6 grams per square meter to about 406.9 grams per square meter) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed spacer layer specific weight through routine experimentation in order to provide desired pad properties. The claimed spacer layer specific weight is merely an optimum or workable specific weight and the specific weight of the spacer layer is expected to affect water retention and/or cooling performance of the spacer layer and/or of the pad.
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that the spacer layer has a specific weight of 200 g/m2 in order to yield a pad and/or spacer layer whose water uptake and/or cooling performance afforded thereby is desirable to some user(s) of the pad and/or spacer layer. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Soibelman is directed to providing “moisture absorption” and/or “thermal regulation” (para 12) to the pad.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908] and [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Wiles, US 2006/0010568, previously cited].
Regarding claim 11:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the base body is formed from foam and/or from a gel.
However, Wiles teaches a pad appropriate for a helmet (Abstract) wherein a base body 107 is formed from a foam (“foam padding”; para 25). Wiles further teaches the base body 107 “is water absorbing or hydrophilic foam that includes antibacterial and anti-microbial agents to eliminate odor and other unpleasant effects of extended use. The hydrophilic foam is commercially available. The foam has integrated therein water absorbent polymer crystals, so that the foam will absorb moisture such as sweat” (para 25).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that the base body is formed from foam in order to eliminate odor and/or other unpleasant effects of extended use and/or in order to absorb moisture and/or sweat, as taught by Wiles (para 25).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908] and [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Blakely, US 2015/0106992, newly cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Soibelman does not expressly disclose An impact protection waistcoat or and impact protection trousers comprising: the head protection pad according to claim 1 attached to an arm or a leg or a torso of the waistcoat or the impact protection trousers.
However, Blakely teaches a waistcoat or trousers (“shirt[]”; “pants”; “jackets”) configured to “regulate the temperature of the wearer” (Abstract) by applying a “thermal regulation membrane” (Abstract) thereto.
It 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 to have modified the head protection pad of the modified Soibelman such that it is attached to an arm, a leg, and/or a torso of a waistcoat and/or of a trousers in order to regulate the temperature of a wearer of the waistcoat or trousers, as suggested by Blakely (Abstract). In adopting the modification, one would arrive at an impact protection waistcoat and/or an impact protection trousers insofar as the waistcoat and/or trousers would be configured to protect against impact owing to at least the padding of the head protection pad attached thereto.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908] and [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Blythe, US 2021/0274856, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 15, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer is directly adjacent to the outer layer.
Rather, in the modified Soibelman as set forth in above addressing of claim 1: the spacer layer 220 is directly adjacent base body 230 (as in Soibelman Fig. 2), and the outer layer is the additional layer between 230 and 240 (refer to above treatment of claim 1) such that base body 230 is interposed between outer layer and spacer layer 220.
Nevertheless and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman as embodied in paras 26-27 teaches providing plural additional layers between 210 and 240 and arranged in any order: “One or more additional layers of material may be inserted between layer 210 and layer 240 such as, but not limited to, one or more thermal regulation material layers, one or more moisture wicking material layers, one or more moisture absorption material layers, one or more comfort regulation material layers or any combination thereof. Each of the layers 210, 220, 230, 240 and any additional layers may be arranged in any order and may comprise any of the aforementioned materials.”
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that it is provided with yet another additional layer—arranged between the inner layer 210 and the outer layer—and provided directly adjacent the outer layer in order to afford moisture absorption and/or comfort regulation to the pad, as suggested by Soibelman (paras 26-27).
In adopting the modification, said yet another additional layer provided directly adjacent the outer layer would be a spacer layer directly adjacent to the outer layer further wherein said yet another additional layer would be the spacer layer arranged between the inner layer and the outer layer of claim 1. In other words, in adopting the modification, the yet another layer would be the spacer layer of claim 1, and layer 220 of Soibelman would be an extraneous layer.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer is interwoven with the outer layer and/or that the spacer layer is interwoven with the inner layer.
The spacer layer is directly adjacent the outer layer (see above modification); however, Soibelman does not state the two are interwoven with each other. Soibelman as embodied in Fig. 1 and para 25 teaches “The first side surface 110 and second side surface 120 (and any materials therebetween) may be stitched together along a seam 130 that follows a contour of the outer edge of the insert system 100 as shown in FIG. 1. The seam 130 may be at least partly defined by textile stitching” such that Soibelman at least teaches stitching plural layers together. However, Soibelman is silent as to any given layer being interwoven with any other given layer.
However, Blythe teaches a “double-layer construct” (Abstract) appropriate for apparel configured to cover a wearer’s head “headbands, caps (skull caps), hats” (para 6) wherein two layers of the double-layer construct are interwoven with each other: “outer and inner layers are interwoven at at least a portion of their interface”; para 8.
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that its spacer layer is interwoven with its outer layer in order to yield the predictable result of the combined spacer layer and outer layer being secured to each other via their being interwoven at at least a portion of the interface between the spacer layer and the outer layer.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908], [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] and [Blythe, US 2021/0274856] as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of [Stabelfeldt, US 2007/0098953, previously cited] and [Buchalter, US 2020/0197560, previously cited].
Regarding claim 17:
Soibelman in view of Ryan and Blythe teach The head protection pad according to claim 16, as set forth above.
Soibelman does not expressly disclose wherein the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of sticks or hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle a to each other, which are aligned transversely to the outer layer.
However and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman teaches providing a layer with a plurality of sticks (i.e. hooks of “hook and loop fasteners”; para 25) for the purpose of removably coupling layers (para 25).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that its spacer layer is provided with a plurality of hooks in order to permit the spacer layer to be removably coupled to a corresponding loops portion of another layer, as suggested by Soibelman (para 25). In adopting the modification, the limitation “wherein the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of sticks or hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle α to each other, which are aligned transversely to the outer layer” would be met insofar as the plurality of hooks is a plurality of sticks; although the modified Soibelman would not comprise hair as claimed, it is noted that the hair is presented in the alternative, and the modified Soibelman meets the limitation in that its spacer layer is formed from a plurality of sticks as described above; the claimed “hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle α to each other, which are aligned transversely to the outer layer” is presented in the alternative.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein a surface density of 2500 sticks or hair per cm2 is provided.
However, Stabelfeldt teaches sticks (“hooks”; para 2) appropriate for clothing and wearing apparel (“diapers, shoes, disposable gowns, etc.” (para 2)) wherein a surface density of “from about 60 hooks/cm2 to about 1600 hooks/cm2” is provided. Stabelfeldt does not provide upper and/or lower boundaries for what it means to be “about 1600 hooks/cm2”; however, the claimed 2500 sticks per cm2 is about 1600 hooks/cm2; and the claimed 2500 sticks per cm2 is close to 1600 hooks/cm2. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2144.05 which states in relevant part “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”.
Buchalter teaches sticks (“hooks” in a “fastening system”; para 31) for wearing apparel (“Diapers...worn”; para 81) wherein peel force of a fastening system comprising said sticks is influenced by stick density: “advantageous to increase the peel force...This may be achieved by increasing the area of the hooks in the fastening system”; para 82.
Because Buchalter is concerned with desired peel strength of sticks of wearing apparel and because Stabelfeldt provides a range (i.e. about 1600 hooks/cm2) encompassing and/or close to the claimed limitation, the claimed surface density is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed surface density value through routine experimentation in order to provide desired pad properties. The claimed surface density is merely an optimum or workable surface density and the surface density is expected to affect peel strength of the fastening that holds together adjacent layers of the pad.
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that a surface density of 2500 sticks per cm2 is provided in order to permit the spacer layer to be removably coupled to a corresponding loops portion of another layer such that they are not readily separated from one another unless a peel strength afforded by the 2500 sticks per cm2 is exceeded.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908], [Ryan, US 2018/0242665], [Blythe, US 2021/0274856], [Stabelfeldt, US 2007/0098953] and [Buchalter, US 2020/0197560] as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of [Smolko, US 2006/0201187, previously cited], [Goldfine, US 2002/0112499, previously cited], and [Wiles, US 2006/0010568, previously cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Soibelman in view of Ryan, Blythe, Stabelfeldt, and Buchalter teach The head protection pad according to claim 17, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer has a thickness of at least 5 mm.
However, Smolko teaches a layer (a layer of “porous material”; para 46) appropriate for a “cooling garment” (para 68) wherein the layer has a thickness “in the range from about 0.001'' (0.025 mm) to 0.25'' (6.4 mm). The porous matrices can...provide structural rigidity, scratch resistance, and/or mechanical integrity” (para 48).
Because Smolko is concerned with desired structural rigidity, scratch resistance, and mechanical integrity of a layer and provides a range (i.e. from about 0.025 mm to about 6.4 mm) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed spacer layer thickness through routine experimentation in order to provide desired pad properties. The claimed spacer layer thickness is merely an optimum or workable thickness and the thickness of the spacer layer is expected to affect structural rigidity, scratch resistance, and mechanical integrity of the spacer layer and/or of the pad.
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that the spacer layer has a thickness of at least 5 mm in order to yield a pad and/or spacer layer whose structural rigidity, scratch resistance, and mechanical integrity afforded thereby is desirable to some user(s) of the pad and/or spacer layer. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Soibelman is directed to maintaining adequate “structural integrity” of the pad (para 27 of Soibelman).
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the spacer layer has a specific weight of 200 g/m2.
However, Goldfine teaches a “cooling fabric 10 and the evaporative cooling fabric 38 may be cut in any desired shape to form articles of clothing that are fastenable against or around the body, or any body portion, of the user” (para 69) wherein a layer 12 thereof has a specific weight of “about 4 ounces per square yard (about 135.6 grams per square meter) to about 12 ounces per square yard (about 406.9 grams per square meter)” (para 31) wherein “Evaporative cooling performance of the evaporative cooling fabric 10 has been found to be generally adequate when the face fabric layer 12 has a weight ranging from about 4 ounces per square yard (about 135.6 grams per square meter) to about 12 ounces per square yard (about 406.9 grams per square meter). The weight of a particular fabric is highly dependent upon both the amount and nature of fibers used in the fabric and the degree of compression of the fibers within the fabric. Enhanced compression and consequent enhanced fiber density tends to reduce the amount of water that can be held within a particular fabric, though sufficient fiber density and compression is necessary to account for the surface tension of the water and allow for retention of water” (para 31).
Because Goldfine is concerned with desired cooling performance and water retention of a layer and provides a range (i.e. about 135.6 grams per square meter to about 406.9 grams per square meter) encompassing the claimed limitation, the claimed range is considered as a result-effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed spacer layer specific weight through routine experimentation in order to provide desired pad properties. The claimed spacer layer specific weight is merely an optimum or workable specific weight and the specific weight of the spacer layer is expected to affect water retention and/or cooling performance of the spacer layer and/or of the pad.
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that the spacer layer has a specific weight of 200 g/m2 in order to yield a pad and/or spacer layer whose water uptake and/or cooling performance afforded thereby is desirable to some user(s) of the pad and/or spacer layer. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Soibelman is directed to providing “moisture absorption” and/or “thermal regulation” (para 12) to the pad.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation wherein the base body is formed from foam and/or from a gel.
However, Wiles teaches a pad appropriate for a helmet (Abstract) wherein a base body 107 is formed from a foam (“foam padding”; para 25). Wiles further teaches the base body 107 “is water absorbing or hydrophilic foam that includes antibacterial and anti-microbial agents to eliminate odor and other unpleasant effects of extended use. The hydrophilic foam is commercially available. The foam has integrated therein water absorbent polymer crystals, so that the foam will absorb moisture such as sweat” (para 25).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that the base body is formed from foam in order to eliminate odor and/or other unpleasant effects of extended use and/or in order to absorb moisture and/or sweat, as taught by Wiles (para 25).
Regarding claim 19:
Soibelman in view of Ryan, Blythe, Stabelfeldt, Buchalter, Smolko, Goldfine, and Wiles teach The head protection pad according to claim 18, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation A system, comprising: the head protection pad according to claim 18 and a helmet cover, wherein the head protection pad is attached to an inner side of the helmet cover.
However and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman teaches a system comprising a head protection pad 410 and a helmet cover (“helmet[]”; para 44) wherein the head protection pad is attached to an inner side of the helmet cover (“secured within a headwear article 420...along the interior of the headwear article 420...any position along the interior of the headwear article may be utilized as the desired position 430 based upon the need of the user and the given headwear article 420. Further, while in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 4A & 4C the headwear article 420 is shown to be an athletic cap, it is to be understood that any suitable type of headwear article 420 may be utilized including, but not limited to, athletic caps, cowboy hats, fashion headdress, construction hats, automotive helmets, sports helmets” (para 43-44).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that it is attached to an inner side of a helmet cover such that a system, comprising: the head protection pad according to claim 18 and a helmet cover, wherein the head protection pad is attached to an inner side of the helmet cover is provided in order to yield the predictable result of a system whose helmet is configured to protect a skull of a wearer and whose pad is configured to protect the wearer from sweat.
Regarding claim 20:
Soibelman in view of Ryan, Blythe, Stabelfeldt, Buchalter, Smolko, Goldfine, and Wiles teach The head protection pad according to claim 18, as set forth above.
The modified Soibelman does not meet the limitation A padded helmet cover, comprising: the head protection pad according to claim 18 attached in a helmet cover.
However and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman teaches a system comprising a head protection pad 410 and a helmet cover (“helmet[]”; para 44) wherein the head protection pad is attached in the helmet cover (“secured within a headwear article 420...along the interior of the headwear article 420...any position along the interior of the headwear article may be utilized as the desired position 430 based upon the need of the user and the given headwear article 420. Further, while in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 4A & 4C the headwear article 420 is shown to be an athletic cap, it is to be understood that any suitable type of headwear article 420 may be utilized including, but not limited to, athletic caps, cowboy hats, fashion headdress, construction hats, automotive helmets, sports helmets” (para 43-44).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that it is attached in a helmet cover such that a padded helmet cover comprising the head protection pad according to claim 18 attached in a helmet cover is provided in order to yield the predictable result of a system whose helmet cover is configured to protect a skull of a wearer and whose pad is configured to protect the wearer from sweat.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Soibelman, US 2021/0112908] and [Ryan, US 2018/0242665] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Noel, US 5,032,122, newly cited].
Regarding claim 21:
Soibelman in view of Ryan teach The head protection pad according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Soibelman does not expressly disclose wherein the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of hairs arranged parallel to each other.
However and in further view of Soibelman:
Soibelman teaches providing a layer with a plurality of hairs (i.e. loops of “hook and loop fasteners”; para 25) for the purpose of removably coupling layers (para 25).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that its spacer layer is provided with a plurality of loops in order to permit the spacer layer to be removably coupled to a corresponding hooks portion of another layer, as suggested by Soibelman (para 25). In adopting the modification, the limitation “wherein the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of hairs” would be met insofar as the plurality of loops is a plurality of hairs.
The modified Soibleman does not meet the limitation:
wherein the spacer layer is formed from a plurality of hairs arranged parallel to each other.
Noel teaches hairs 30 i.e. (“filaments 30”; col. 4 line 49) appropriate for garments (“garments”; col. 1 line 34) wherein said hairs are arranged parallel to each other (“positioned...in parallel with each other”; “parallel”; col. 4 lines 55-58 and 65; Fig. 3).
Noel teaches the hairs 30 are “positioned” such that the “loop fastening material” formed thereby “provide[s] an effective fastening device” to “securely engage hook fastening material” (col. 7 lines 11-28).
Noel further teaches “the filaments 30 should preferably be positioned as parallel with each other as possible to” be “configured in a uniform direction” (col. 7 lines 31-34) in order to assist in forming loops of “maximum height” (col. 7 lines 38-39).
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that its plurality of hairs is arranged parallel to each other, as in Noel, in order to afford hairs of sufficient height to securely engage a corresponding hooks fastener, as suggested by Noel (col. 7 lines 11-28 and 38-39).
And/or
It 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 to have modified the modified Soibelman such that its plurality of hairs is arranged parallel to each other, as in Noel, in order to permit attachment of the hairs to a corresponding hooks fastener. One of ordinary skill would have been confronted with a decision as to which material(s) to use for the purpose of providing hairs capable of attaching to hooks and would have recognized that the structure of Noel would be an acceptable material therefor based on the teachings of Noel.
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 GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights