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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-18 are presented.
Claim 1 is presented in independent form and is amended.
The present Office action treats claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-18 on the merits.
The present Office action is a non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 11/21/2025 (see p. 5-10 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding §112 (p. 5): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the present disclosure, the amended claims, and Applicant’s remarks (p. 6 lines 24-32), the 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are overcome.
Regarding §103 (p. 6-10): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 7):
As admitted in the Office Action, "Velasco does not expressly disclose an inner fabric layer that is composed of a base fabric B and a functional Fabric F, with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F, wherein the base fabric B is formed from cotton or other moisture-absorbing materials and the functional fabric F is formed from a material which has a cooling effect."
The Office Action then turns to Zebouni to state that the indicated limitations are obvious. The Office Action states Zebouni discloses a headwear liner assembly 13 comprising top sheet layer 30 and absorbent core layer 50 which together combine and form the defined inner fabric layer. Still further, the Office Action states, "the basis weighting of the top sheet layer 30 is preferably from 10 gsm and the absorbent correlator 50 is ...preferably being from 50 to 500 or more gsm." The Office Action then concludes the ranges provided by Zebouni therefore overlap the defined ranges of fabric B and fabric F in the inner layer.
Applicant respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons.
First, if one of ordinary skill in the art would resort to Zebouni in attempt to modify Velasco, they would first have to determine which of Velasco's layers would be replaced and why they would need to be replaced. Respectfully, there is no good reason presented in the Office Action as to why Velasco's inner layer would be replaced. It is only an assumption that the inner layer of Zebouni would need to be replaced, because Zebouni does not disclose the defined inner fabric layer of independent claim 1. However, there are many other possibilities for modifying Velasco in view of Zebouni which are also not excluded and also possible too. In short, there is no motivation to modify Valasco in view of Zebouni.
Still further even if one of ordinary skill in the art would replace Velasco's single inner layer 360, why would he or she use two of Zebouni's layers, base layer 30 and core layer 50, as argued in the Office Action? No answer for this is given in the Office Action.
Examiner’s reply:
The above argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because the argument is not commensurate with the rejection as applied. The argument asserts a person “ordinary skill in the art ...would first have to determine which of Velasco's layers would be replaced and why they would need to be replaced”. However, this line of argumentation is not consistent with the rejection as applied in that the rejection as applied is not replacement of one or more layer(s) of Velasco but, rather, providing a liner assembly comprising an inner fabric layer (see Office action of 06/25/2025, the paragraph spanning p. 7-8 thereof). The rejection as applied, therefore, is not replacement of one or more layer(s) of Velasco as argued but, rather, providing a liner assembly. It is noted Zebouni teaches a headwear liner assembly (Abstract of Zebouni) configured to be provided onto a portion of headwear (para 5 of Zebouni).
Applicant argues (p. 7-8):
At least one reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would not apply two of Zebouni's layers is because Velasco describes that the padding layer, middle layer, e.g. damping layer 340 can comprise padding in paragraph [0032] and also that the padding layer can be breathable and/or generally porous to provide ventilation as set forth in paragraph [0050]. This architecture and function of absorbing moisture are the same as Zebouni's absorbent core layer 50 as recognized in the Office Action on page 6.
In view of the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be led to replace Velasco's inner layer with both top sheet layer 30 and absorbent core layer 50 of Zebouni as then two moisture absorbent layers would be present adjacent to each other which would result in an increase of weight, and costs.
Examiner’s reply:
The above argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because the argument is not commensurate with the rejection as applied. The “Office Action on page 6” does not state that the “function of absorbing moisture” of Velasco layer 340 and Zebouni base fabric 50 is the “same” as argued. Indeed, p. 6 of the Office action does not refer to any specific property of Velasco layer 340. Applicant’s references to Velsco paras 32 and 50 are fully considered and are unpersuasive relative to the argued sameness of function between Velasco layer 340 and Zebouni base fabric 50 if only because Velasco paras 32 and 50 do not state a specific “function of absorbing moisture” as argued. Although paras 32 and 50 state “absorbing”, this “absorbing” is directed not to the absorbing of moisture as argued but rather “impact”, “energy[]”, and “shock” absorption (paras 32 and 50 of Velasco). Although para 50 states “breathable and/or generally porous to provide ventilation”, it does not state absorbing moisture.
Applicant’s further argument about “to replace Velasco's inner layer” are fully considered and are not persuasive if only because the argument is not commensurate with the rejection as applied. As stated above in addressing Applicant’s arguments of p. 7 of the reply, the rejection as applied is not replacement of one or more layer(s) of Velasco but, rather, providing a liner assembly comprising an inner fabric layer (see Office action of 06/25/2025, the paragraph spanning p. 7-8 thereof). The rejection as applied, therefore, is not replacement of one or more layer(s) of Velasco as argued but, rather, providing a liner assembly.
Applicant argues (p. 8):
Still further, as indicated above, the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer including both base fabric B and functional fabric F in the indicated weight percentages.
As the solution presented in the Office Action has an architecture of two different layers, namely top sheet layer 30 and absorbent core layer 50, even if Velasco and Zebouni are combined, one of ordinary skill in the art would still not arrive at the invention set forth in independent claim 1 wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer composed of base fabric B and functional fabric F.
Still further, independent claim 1 requires 60 to 80 % of base fabric B and 20-40 % of functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer which is a single composite layer.
To the contrary, the construction proposed in the Office Action relates to the weight ratio between two separate layers in Zebouni.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 is also not obvious as neither reference teaches or suggests the inner layer itself having 60 to 80 % base fabric B and 20 to 40 % functional fabric F.
Examiner’s reply:
The above argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument is drawn to newly amended subject matter which has necessitated a new interpretation of the prior art and is presented in the rejections below. It is noted, however, that Applicant’s argument that “a single composite layer” cannot comprise “an architecture of two different layers” is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because it is not consistent with the disclosure as filed. The disclosure as filed states that a single composite layer (i.e. “a composite layer”; p. 4 line 25 of the specification of 04/04/2024) can comprise plural layers (“a composite layer consisting of three layers” and “If the composite layer is two-layered”; p. 4 lines 25-27 of the specification of 04/04/2024).
Applicant argues (p. 8-9):
As set forth in paragraph [0054] Velasco also describes, "Generally, moisture wicking translate into sweat management, which works by removing perspiration from the skin in an attempt to cool the wearer." Applicant respectfully highlights that this is just "an attempt" to cool the skin or other bodies, heat must be dissipated.
In the case of skin, cooling is based on the fact that sweat gets evaporated. Hence, sweat needs heat to be evaporated. This heat is taken from body heat of the skin. This is particularly noticeable when wet skin is exposed to "cold", windy conditions. If the skin were dry this cooling would not take place. That is why one dries themselves off when exposed to cold, windy conditions. A logical conclusion is that by transporting the moisture/sweat from the inner layer, any cooling effect is stopped due to the lack of sweat to get evaporated. It would be of advantage, if the sweat remains on the skin and could be exposed to wind, streaming through Velasco's padding layer or Zebouni's core layer 50. Then there would be a cooling effect. However, this does not happen in Velasco or Zebouni.
The secondary references cannot add any further teachings or suggestions that supply the deficiencies of Velasco and Zebouni.
It is respectfully submitted that the dependent claims are also not obvious as they depend directly or indirectly upon independent claim 1.
Examiner’s reply:
The above argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because Applicant’s argument that “cooling is based on the fact that sweat gets evaporated...sweat needs heat to be evaporated...cooling effect is stopped due to the lack of sweat” is not consistent with the disclosure as filed insofar as cooling as described by the Applicant does not expressly occur via sweat evaporation as argued. Rather, the disclosure as filed states a “cooling medium...can absorb body heat” (p. 2 lines 20-21 of the specification of 04/04/2024) and does not expressly state that such heat absorption occurs via sweat evaporation as argued. It is further noted that body heat loss can occur by a plurality of physical processes including at least “radiation, convection, conduction and evaporation” (para 3 of extrinsic reference [Paternoster, US 2006/0150295]) such that Applicant’s argument which hinges upon the “cooling effect is stopped due to the lack of sweat to get evaporated” is further unpersuasive if only because cooling is capable of occurring via more physical processes than only sweat evaporation as argued.
Applicant argues (p. 9-10):
Svehaug as Primary Reference
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9 have been rejected under 35 U.SC. 103 as being unpatentable over Svehaug, (US 2014/0007324) newly cited in view of Zebouni. Claim 2 has beenrejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svehaug and Zebouni and further in view of Johnson. Claims 3-4 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svehaug and Zebouni and further in view of Lamb. Claims 10-11 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svehaug and Zebouni and further in view of Rosenberger. Claims 14-15 have rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svehaug, Zebouni and Johnson and further in view of Lamb.
It is respectfully submitted that the cited references cannot render the invention set forth in the pending claims obvious and a prima facie case of obviousness has not been presented for at least the following reasons, especially in view of the amendments presented herewith.
The Office Action admits "Svehaug does not expressly disclose an inner fabric layer, and wherein the inner fabric layer is composed of of a base fabric B and a functional fabric F, with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F, wherein the base fabric B is formed from cotton or other moisture-absorbing materials and the functional fabric F is formed from a material which has a cooling effect."
As outlined in detail hereinabove, even if one of ordinary skill in the art would turn to Zebouni and attempt to combine the same with Svehaug they would still not arrive at the specifically defined head protection bonnet having the features admitted to be missing in Svehaug based on the argumentation provided above and herein fully incorporated by reference.
The secondary references cannot add any further teachings or suggestions that
supply the deficiencies of Svehaug and Zebouni.
It is respectfully submitted that the dependent claims are also not obvious as they depend directly or indirectly upon claim 1.
Examiner’s reply:
The above argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly amended subject matter, which has necessitated a new interpretation of the prior art and is presented in the rejections below. It is noted that Applicant’s specific “argumentation provided above” in reference to those arguments presented within the section of the remarks “Velasco as a Primary Reference” are addressed by the Examiner in the present Office action (vide supra). It is further noted that Applicant’s argument does not specifically challenge any additional teaching or matter related to Svehaug alone or in combination with other reference(s).
Applicant argues (p. 10):
Capuano as Primary Reference
Claims 1, 6, and 9 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capuano, (US 201410007323) in view of Zebouni. Claim 2 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capuano and Zebouni and further in view of Johnson. Claims 3-4 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capuano and Zebouni and further in view of Lamb. Claims 10-11 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capuano and Zebouni and further in view of Rosenberger. Claim 13 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capuano, and Zebouni and further in view of Bhatnagar, (US 2013/0212763) previously cited. Claim 14 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capuano, Zebouni and Johnson and further in view of Lamb.
It is respectfully submitted that the cited references cannot render the invention set forth in the pending claims obvious and a prima facie case of obviousness has not been presented for at least the following reasons, especially in view of the amendments presented herewith.
The secondary references cannot add any further teachings or suggestions that supply the deficiencies of Capuano and Zebouni.
It is respectfully submitted that the dependent claims are also not obvious as they depend directly or indirectly upon claim 1.
Examiner’s reply:
The above argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly amended subject matter, which has necessitated a new interpretation of the prior art and is presented in the rejections below. It is noted that Applicant’s arguments presented within the section of the remarks “Velasco as a Primary Reference” are addressed by the Examiner in the present Office action (vide supra). It is further noted that Applicant’s argument does not specifically challenge any additional teaching or matter related to Capuano alone or in combination with other reference(s).
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, 5-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939, previously cited] in view of [Bonin, US 2017/0106622, previously cited], and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Velasco discloses (Figs. 17A-17C):
A head protection bonnet 300 (i.e. “head guard 300”; para 48) for wearing under a steel helmet or under a ballistic helmet (bonnet 300 is configured to be “worn underneath a wide variety of helmets” as described generally at para 33 and in the same manner that bonnets 100, 120, 130, and 1000 are shown to be worn underneath their respective helmets in Figs. 1-3 and 38; bonnet 300 is for head protection if only because damping layer 340 thereof is configured to protect against impact as described in paras 50, 51), comprising:
an outer layer 320 (i.e. “outer layer 320”; para 48),
a damping layer 340 (i.e. “padding layer 340”; para 48, wherein said layer 340 is a damping layer insofar as it is configured to “absorb[]”, “protect[]”, “[]dispers[e]”, and/or “resist[]” impact (paras 50-51) so as to be configured to dampen impact) at least indirectly adjoining (damping layer 340 “attached to one or more layers...outer layer 320...of FIG. 17C”; para 50 such that it is at least indirectly adjoining outer layer 320) the outer layer 320.
Velasco does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer has at least one of the following properties: fire resistance, or flame retardance, cut resistance and puncture-resistance.
In further view of Velasco: in reference to outer layer 320: Velasco generally teaches that the materials and/or properties of bonnet inner and/or outer layers can vary and lists some such materials and properties “without limitation” (para 52). And Velasco as embodied in para 37 teaches a bonnet 100 can be used “in combination with” “helmets worn by...firemen” (para 37). As such, one of ordinary skill would at least recognize that the properties and materials of the claimed layers could be modified; and one of ordinary skill would further recognize that the bonnet and its constituent layers be used by a fireman exposed to fire hazard.
Nevertheless, Bonin teaches an “impact resistant material...can form any embodiment of wearable article...including...helmet liners” (para 43) wherein a layer thereof “is treated with chemicals to provide at least one of fire resistance” (para 15) further wherein another layer thereof “has properties including...fire resistance” (para 23). Bonin further teaches that certain “individuals...wear clothing or equipment to protect against such hazards as...fire” (para 57).
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 bonnet of Velasco such that its outer layer has the property of fire resistance, as do each of the disclosed layers of Bonin, in order to yield a bonnet that is capable of protecting a wearer against a fire hazard.
Velasco does not expressly disclose an inner fabric layer configured to contact the head of a user, and wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer composed of a base fabric B and a functional fabric F, with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer, wherein the base fabric B is formed from cotton or other moisture-absorbing materials and the functional fabric F is formed from a material which has a cooling effect.
As embodied in para 54, Velasco teaches “In some embodiments, a head guard, or at least various components of a head guard are configured to provide moisture wicking properties. Generally, moisture wicking translates into sweat management, which works by removing perspiration from the skin in an attempt to cool the wearer” (para 54).
Zebouni teaches a “headwear liner assembly” (Abstract) configured to be “mounted...directly onto a forehead or forefront portion of headwear, such as caps, hats, visors, helmets or the like”.
The headwear liner assembly 13 (i.e. “headwear liner 13”; para 17; Fig. 1) comprises an inner fabric (element 30 being a “nonwoven” (para 18) fabric; element 50 being “nonwovens made with...fibers”; para 19) layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined “topsheet layer 30” and “absorbent core layer 50”; para 18) configured to contact the head of a user (para 14 wherein it is noted 35 secures the liner to a headwear such that the “top or upper side of the liner is...the side of the liner that remains exposed after attachment of the liner to the headwear and which contacts the user's skin” described in para 14 such that 30 of the inner fabric layer and therefore the inner fabric layer is configured to contact the head of the user) wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer (consistent with the present disclosure as filed which states a single composite layer can comprise plural layers; p. 4 lines 25-27 of the specification of 04/04/2024) composed of a base fabric 50 and a functional fabric 30, wherein the base fabric 50 is formed from cotton (“cotton fibers...nonwovens made with”; para 19) and the functional fabric 30 is formed from a material which is moisture wicking (“moisture wicking”; para 18) and “remains relatively dry” such that the “moisture absorbed into the absorbent core layer is separated from the user’s skin” (para 5). The base fabric 50 is “absorbent of liquids”, and the liner assembly 13 is configured to promote “absorption of perspiration and other liquids” (para 7) and “to absorb perspiration, oils, sunscreen, cosmetics or other such liquids, referred to herein generally as moisture”; para 14).
Accordingly, the material that is “moisture-wicking” as described by Zebouni wherein “moisture passes through” the functional fabric 30 (Zebouni para 18) is formed from a material which has a cooling effect as claimed insofar as Velasco teaches that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
As embodied in paras 18-19, Zebouni teaches “The basis weighting of the topsheet layer 30 is preferably from 10 gsm to 50 or more gsm” and the “absorbent core layer 50 is...preferably being from 50 to 500 or more gsm”. Accordingly Zebouni provides a basis weight range that includes 10 – 50 grams per square meter for the base fabric 50 and 50-500 grams per square meter for the functional fabric 30. The ranges provided by Zebouni therefore overlap the claimed range of “with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer” insofar as the ranges of Zebouni include basis weight combinations that are 60-80% base fabric and 20-40% functional fabric, for example: providing the base fabric at 175 grams per square meter and the functional fabric at 30 grams per square meter results in 70.7% base fabric and 29.3% functional fabric because 175/(175+30) = 70.7% and 30/(175+30) = 29.3%. In like manner, other combinations of base fabric and functional fabric basis weights yield values within the claimed ranges; for example: providing the base fabric at 250 grams per square meter and the functional fabric at 40 grams per square meter results in 72.4% base fabric and 27.6 % functional fabric. Accordingly, the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2144.05, which states, in relevant part: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Because Zebouni is concerned with desired moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separating moisture absorbed into the base fabric from the wearer’s skin, and provides a range 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 “with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer” through routine experimentation in order to provide desired inner fabric properties. The claimed % base fabric and % functional fabric are merely optimum or workable percents and the % base fabric and % functional fabric are expected to affect moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separation of moisture away from a wearer of the inner fabric.
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 Velasco such that it is provided with a headwear liner assembly comprising an inner fabric layer configured to contact the head of a user, and wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer composed of a base fabric B and a functional fabric F, with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer, wherein the base fabric B is formed from cotton functional fabric F is formed from a material which has a cooling effect in order to promote moisture wicking and moisture absorption, as suggested by Zebouni (paras 7, 14, and 18), wherein the degree of moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separation of moisture from the wearer afforded by providing the functional fabric and base fabric at 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer is desirable to a user of the bonnet according to his or her preferences and manner of use of the bonnet.
Regarding claim 5:
Velasco in view of Bonin and Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Velasco further discloses wherein the damping layer 340 is designed as an impact protection layer (340 is is configured to “absorb[]”, “protect[]”, “[]dispers[e]”, and/or “resist[]” impact (paras 50-51) such that it is designed as an impact protection layer) which is made of plastic or foam (“foam”; para 50) and can be adapted to the shape of the head (as embodied in Figs. 17A-17C, the bonnet and its constituent parts including damping layer 340 are configured to be adapted to a shape of a head in order to accommodate a wearer in the same manner that bonnets 100, 120, 130, are shown to be adapted to a shape of a head Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 6:
Velasco in view of Bonin and Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein at least one first intermediate layer (34 of Zebouni) is provided, which is designed as a spacer layer (layer 34 is configured to provide space between layer 35 and 50 of the inner fabric layer; Fig. 1 of Zebouni) and which adjoins the inner fabric layer (para 24 and Fig. 1 of Zebouni).
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
Regarding claim 9:
Velasco in view of Bonin and Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 6, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate layer (i.e. 34 of Zebouni) is formed (via “punch bonding” (para 23 of Zebouni) from a plurality of sticks (“plurality of small pins or posts”; para 23), which are aligned transversely to the inner fabric layer (para 23; Fig. 1 of Zebouni). Accordingly, the modified Velasco meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate 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 inner fabric layer insofar as the “hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle a to each other” is presented in the alternative.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939], [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Johnson, US 2015/0059055, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Velasco in view of Bonin and Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer has at least one of the following properties: fire-resistance and flame-resistance.
However, Johnson teaches a “moisture wicking layer comprising non-woven, absorbent polymeric fibers” (claim 1) appropriate for use in combination with “a hat or helmet to prevent sweat from dripping onto the user's face” (para 2) wherein the “moisture wicking layer...can incorporate flame-resistant fibers (e.g., Nomex[])” (para 49).
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 Velasco such that its inner fabric layer has a property of flame-resistance in order to make the inner fabric layer capable of resisting flame and/or fire, as suggested by Johnson (para 49), for the purpose of wearer safety in the event of exposure to flame and/or fire.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939], [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Lamb, WO 2008/149127, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Velasco in view of Bonin and Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer insofar as it is configured to wick moisture and remove perspiration from the skin, wherein Velasco teaches that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
The modified Velasco does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced.
However, Lamb teaches a functional fabric (“first layer 2”; p. 4 line 13, wherein layer 2 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4), and a base fabric 3 (i.e. “second layer 3”; p. 4 line 14, wherein layer 3 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4) wherein the base fabric 3 is formed from a moisture-absorbing material (base fabric 3 is “adapted to absorb moisture” (p. 4 line 14)), and the functional fabric 3 is formed from a material which has a cooling effect (“layer 2...is a temperature equalisation layer...which is adapted to cool the body”; p. 6 lines 21-23). The functional fabric 2 comprises a cooling medium (“phase change material”; Abstract) of Lamb, which is described in Lamb as being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract) and is therefore connected to the inner fabric layer and also integrally contained in the inner fabric layer such that it is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer. In addition, the cooling medium (i.e. “phase change material”) changes its aggregate state when heat is introduced (“absorb...heat as the microcapsules change from a solid to a liquid phase (p. 5 lines 1-2)). Lamb further teaches wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (by virtue of being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract of Lamb)), paraffin being provided as the coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb).
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 Velasco such that the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced; further wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the inner fabric layer, paraffin being provided as the coolant, in order to provide additional cooling to the body via the cooling medium, as suggested by Lamb (p. 6 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 4:
Velasco in view of Bonin, Zebouni, and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed) or is absorbed by the inner fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939], [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Austin, US 5,628,065, previously cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Velasco in view of Bonin and Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Velasco does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer is formed from aramid and/or para-aramid and/or modacrylic and/or an antistatically conductive, carbon-containing lightweight fibre.
In further view of Velasco: in reference to outer layer 320: Velasco generally teaches that the materials and/or properties of bonnet inner and/or outer layers can vary and lists some such materials and properties “without limitation” (para 52). And Velasco as embodied in para 37 teaches a bonnet 100 can be used “in combination with” “helmets worn by...firemen” (para 37). As such, one of ordinary skill would at least recognize that the properties and materials of the claimed layers could be modified; and one of ordinary skill would further recognize that the bonnet and its constituent layers be used by a fireman exposed to fire hazard.
Nevertheless, Austin teaches a bonnet (“Hood”; Title) wherein “firefighters wear hoods which are shaped to cover the head...Such hoods are constructed of fire retardant, thermal barrier material, such as a...aramid material...to protect a firefighter against burns in the regions covered by the hood” (col. 1 lines 13-22).
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 Velasco such that its outer layer is formed from aramid, as in Austin, in order to protect a wearer against burns in the regions covered by the bonnet, as suggested by Austin (col. 1 lines 13-22).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939], [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938, previously cited].
Regarding claim 10:
Velasco in view of Bonin and Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 6, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein a second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni) is provided.
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
The modified Velasco does not expressly disclose wherein the first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer.
However, Rosenberger teaches “various layers” of “garments such...hats” (para 61) wherein various layers are interwoven with each other; i.e. “Intermediate layer 113 is positioned below the outer layer 110 and...interwoven with outer layer 110”; para 54. “Inner layer 115 lies beneath intermediate layer(s) 113. Inner layer 115...interwoven with intermediate layer(s) 113” (para 55).
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 Velasco such that its first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer in order to yield the predictable result of the first intermediate layer being durably secured to the second intermediate layer and the inner fabric layer by the first intermediate layer being interwoven as claimed.
Regarding claim 11:
Velasco in view of Bonin, Zebouni, and Rosenberger teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein the spacer layer 34 (i.e. 34 of Zebouni, which is the first intermediate layer which is designed as a spacer layer as set forth in above addressing of claim 6) together with the second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni as set forth in above addressing of claim 10) or together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined 30 and 50 of Zebouni) form a composite layer (the combined layers form a composite layer) or wherein the spacer layer 34 together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 and the second intermediate layer 35 are a composite layer (the combined layers form and are a composite layer).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939], [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Bhatnagar, US 2013/0212763, previously cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Velasco in view of Bonin and Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Velasco does not expressly disclose a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 1 and a ballistic helmet.
In further view of Velasco: Velasco teaches combining a head protection bonnet with a helmet (Abstract) and further teaches that it “may be worn underneath a wide variety of helmets, such as football helmets, batting helmets, bicycle helmets, and so forth” (para 33).
Nevertheless Bhatnagar teaches a helmet that is a ballistic helmet (“helmet is lightweight, has excellent ballistic resistant properties”); Abstract.
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 Velasco such that it is combined with a ballistic helmet so as to yield a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 1 and a ballistic helmet in order to permit a wearer of the bonnet to protect his head from ballistic impact, as suggested by Bhatnagar (Abstract).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939] in view of [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], and [Johnson, US 2015/0059055] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of [Lamb, WO 2008/149127, previously cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Velasco in view of Bonin, Zebouni, and Johnson teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer insofar as it is configured to wick moisture and remove perspiration from the skin, wherein Velasco teaches that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
The modified Velasco does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced, and wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the fabric layer or is absorbed by the fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant.
However, Lamb teaches a functional fabric (“first layer 2”; p. 4 line 13, wherein layer 2 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4), and a base fabric 3 (i.e. “second layer 3”; p. 4 line 14, wherein layer 3 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4) wherein the base fabric 3 is formed from a moisture-absorbing material (base fabric 3 is “adapted to absorb moisture” (p. 4 line 14)), and the functional fabric 3 is formed from a material which has a cooling effect (“layer 2...is a temperature equalisation layer...which is adapted to cool the body”; p. 6 lines 21-23). The functional fabric 2 comprises a cooling medium (“phase change material”; Abstract) of Lamb, which is described in Lamb as being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract) and is therefore connected to the inner fabric layer and also integrally contained in the inner fabric layer such that it is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer. In addition, the cooling medium (i.e. “phase change material”) changes its aggregate state when heat is introduced (“absorb...heat as the microcapsules change from a solid to a liquid phase (p. 5 lines 1-2)). Lamb further teaches wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (by virtue of being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract of Lamb)), with paraffin being provided as the coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb).
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 Velasco such that the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced; further wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the inner fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant, in order to provide additional cooling to the body via the cooling medium, as suggested by Lamb (p. 6 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 15:
Velasco in view of Bonin, Zebouni, Johnson, and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Velasco further discloses wherein the damping layer 340 is designed as an impact protection layer (340 is is configured to “absorb[]”, “protect[]”, “[]dispers[e]”, and/or “resist[]” impact (paras 50-51) such that it is designed as an impact protection layer) which is made of plastic or foam (“foam”; para 50) and can be adapted to the shape of the head (as embodied in Figs. 17A-17C, the bonnet and its constituent parts including damping layer 340 are configured to be adapted to a shape of a head in order to accommodate a wearer in the same manner that bonnets 100, 120, 130, are shown to be adapted to a shape of a head Figs. 1-3).
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein at least one first intermediate layer (34 of Zebouni) is provided, which is designed as a spacer layer (layer 34 is configured to provide space between layer 35 and 50 of the inner fabric layer; Fig. 1 of Zebouni) and which adjoins the inner fabric layer (para 24 and Fig. 1 of Zebouni).
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939], [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055] and [Lamb, WO 2008/149127] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Austin, US 5,628,065, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Velasco in view of Bonin, Zebouni, Johnson, and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 15, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate layer (i.e. 34 of Zebouni) is formed (via “punch bonding” (para 23 of Zebouni) from a plurality of sticks (“plurality of small pins or posts”; para 23), which are aligned transversely to the inner fabric layer (para 23; Fig. 1 of Zebouni). Accordingly, the modified Velasco meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate 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 inner fabric layer insofar as the “hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle a to each other” is presented in the alternative.
Velasco does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer is formed from aramid and/or para-aramid and/or modacrylic and/or an antistatically conductive, carbon-containing lightweight fibre.
In further view of Velasco: in reference to outer layer 320: Velasco generally teaches that the materials and/or properties of bonnet inner and/or outer layers can vary and lists some such materials and properties “without limitation” (para 52). And Velasco as embodied in para 37 teaches a bonnet 100 can be used “in combination with” “helmets worn by...firemen” (para 37). As such, one of ordinary skill would at least recognize that the properties and materials of the claimed layers could be modified; and one of ordinary skill would further recognize that the bonnet and its constituent layers be used by a fireman exposed to fire hazard.
Nevertheless, Austin teaches a bonnet (“Hood”; Title) wherein “firefighters wear hoods which are shaped to cover the head...Such hoods are constructed of fire retardant, thermal barrier material, such as a...aramid material...to protect a firefighter against burns in the regions covered by the hood” (col. 1 lines 13-22).
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 Velasco such that its outer layer is formed from aramid, as in Austin, in order to protect a wearer against burns in the regions covered by the bonnet, as suggested by Austin (col. 1 lines 13-22).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939], [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055] [Lamb, WO 2008/149127], and [Austin, US 5,628,065] as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938].
Regarding claim 17:
Velasco in view of Bonin, Zebouni, Johnson, Lamb, and Austin teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 16, as set forth above.
The modified Velasco does not expressly disclose wherein the first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer.
However, Rosenberger teaches “various layers” of “garments such...hats” (para 61) wherein various layers are interwoven with each other; i.e. “Intermediate layer 113 is positioned below the outer layer 110 and...interwoven with outer layer 110”; para 54. “Inner layer 115 lies beneath intermediate layer(s) 113. Inner layer 115...interwoven with intermediate layer(s) 113” (para 55).
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 Velasco such that its first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer in order to yield the predictable result of the first intermediate layer being durably secured to the second intermediate layer and the inner fabric layer by the first intermediate layer being interwoven as claimed.
The modified Velasco further meets the limitation wherein the spacer layer 34 (i.e. 34 of Zebouni, which is the first intermediate layer which is designed as a spacer layer as set forth in above addressing of claim 6) together with the second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni as set forth in above addressing of claim 10) or together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined 30 and 50 of Zebouni) form a composite layer (the combined layers form a composite layer) or in that the spacer layer 34 together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 and the second intermediate layer 35 are a composite layer (the combined layers form and are a composite layer).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Velasco, US 2014/0143939], [Bonin, US 2017/0106622], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055] [Lamb, WO 2008/149127], [Austin, US 5,628,065], and [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938] as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of [Bhatnagar, US 2013/0212763, previously cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Velasco in view of Bonin, Zebouni, Johnson, Lamb, Austin, and Rosenberger teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Velasco does not expressly disclose a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 17 and a ballistic helmet.
In further view of Velasco: Velasco teaches combining a head protection bonnet with a helmet (Abstract) and further teaches that it “may be worn underneath a wide variety of helmets, such as football helmets, batting helmets, bicycle helmets, and so forth” (para 33).
Nevertheless Bhatnagar teaches a helmet that is a ballistic helmet (“helmet is lightweight, has excellent ballistic resistant properties”); Abstract.
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 Velasco such that it is combined with a ballistic helmet so as to yield a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 17 and a ballistic helmet in order to permit a wearer of the bonnet to protect his head from ballistic impact, as suggested by Bhatnagar (Abstract).
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324, previously cited] in view of [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Svehaug discloses (the “First Embodiment of a Soft helmet for Wear Under a Hat” of paras 39-71):
A head protection bonnet 100 (i.e. “100...soft helmet”; para 40) for wearing under a steel helmet or under a ballistic helmet (bonnet 100 is capable of being worn “Under a Hat” (para 39) and is likewise capable of being worn under a steel helmet or a ballistic helmet), comprising:
an outer layer 104 (“exterior layer 104”; para 41),
a damping layer 110 (i.e. “inserts 110”; para 41, which have the “ability to transfer impact or ballistic loads over the area of the panel...resilient or compressible material...provide impact energy absorption...made of an impact absorbing material” (paras 48-49) such that 110 is a damping layer) at least indirectly adjoining the outer layer (para 44; Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the outer layer has at least one of the following properties: fire resistance (“fire retardant”; para 42), flame retardance, cut resistance, and puncture resistance.
Svehaug does not expressly disclose an inner fabric layer configured to contact the head of a user, and wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer composed of a base fabric B and a functional fabric F, with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer, wherein the base fabric B is formed from cotton or other moisture-absorbing materials and the functional fabric F is formed from a material which has a cooling effect.
Zebouni teaches a “headwear liner assembly” (Abstract) configured to be “mounted...directly onto a forehead or forefront portion of headwear, such as caps, hats, visors, helmets or the like”.
The headwear liner assembly 13 (i.e. “headwear liner 13”; para 17; Fig. 1) comprises an inner fabric (element 30 being a “nonwoven” (para 18) fabric; element 50 being “nonwovens made with...fibers”; para 19) layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined “topsheet layer 30” and “absorbent core layer 50”; para 18) configured to contact the head of a user (para 14 wherein it is noted 35 secures the liner to a headwear such that the “top or upper side of the liner is...the side of the liner that remains exposed after attachment of the liner to the headwear and which contacts the user's skin” described in para 14 such that 30 of the inner fabric layer and therefore the inner fabric layer is configured to contact the head of the user) wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer (consistent with the present disclosure as filed which states a single composite layer can comprise plural layers; p. 4 lines 25-27 of the specification of 04/04/2024) composed of a base fabric 50 and a functional fabric 30, wherein the base fabric 50 is formed from cotton (“cotton fibers...nonwovens made with”; para 19) and the functional fabric 30 is formed from a material which is moisture wicking (“moisture wicking”; para 18) and “remains relatively dry” such that the “moisture absorbed into the absorbent core layer is separated from the user’s skin” (para 5). The base fabric 50 is “absorbent of liquids”, and the liner assembly 13 is configured to promote “absorption of perspiration and other liquids” (para 7) and “to absorb perspiration, oils, sunscreen, cosmetics or other such liquids, referred to herein generally as moisture”; para 14).
Accordingly, the material that is “moisture-wicking” as described by Zebouni wherein “moisture passes through” the functional fabric 30 (Zebouni para 18) is formed from a material which has a cooling effect as claimed. Attention is drawn to extrinsic reference [Velasco, US 2014/0143939] which states that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
As embodied in paras 18-19, Zebouni teaches “The basis weighting of the topsheet layer 30 is preferably from 10 gsm to 50 or more gsm” and the “absorbent core layer 50 is...preferably being from 50 to 500 or more gsm”. Accordingly Zebouni provides a basis weight range that includes 10 – 50 grams per square meter for the base fabric 50 and 50-500 grams per square meter for the functional fabric 30. The ranges provided by Zebouni therefore overlap the claimed range of “with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer” insofar as the ranges of Zebouni include basis weight combinations that are 60-80% base fabric and 20-40% functional fabric, for example: providing the base fabric at 175 grams per square meter and the functional fabric at 30 grams per square meter results in 70.7% base fabric and 29.3% functional fabric because 175/(175+30) = 70.7% and 30/(175+30) = 29.3%. In like manner, other combinations of base fabric and functional fabric basis weights yield values within the claimed ranges; for example: providing the base fabric at 250 grams per square meter and the functional fabric at 40 grams per square meter results in 72.4% base fabric and 27.6 % functional fabric. Accordingly, the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2144.05, which states, in relevant part: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Because Zebouni is concerned with desired moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separating moisture absorbed into the base fabric from the wearer’s skin, and provides a range 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 “with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer” through routine experimentation in order to provide desired inner fabric properties. The claimed % base fabric and % functional fabric are merely optimum or workable percents and the % base fabric and % functional fabric are expected to affect moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separation of moisture away from a wearer of the inner fabric.
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 bonnet of Svehaug such that it is provided with a headwear liner assembly comprising an inner fabric layer configured to contact the head of a user, and wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer composed of a base fabric B and a functional fabric F, with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer, wherein the base fabric B is formed from cotton functional fabric F is formed from a material which has a cooling effect in order to promote moisture wicking and moisture absorption, as suggested by Zebouni (paras 7, 14, and 18), wherein the degree of moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separation of moisture from the wearer afforded by providing the functional fabric and base fabric at 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F is desirable to a user of the bonnet according to his or her preferences and manner of use of the bonnet.
Regarding claim 5:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Svehaug further discloses wherein the damping layer 110 is designed as an impact protection layer (para 29) which is made of plastic or foam (“foam”; para 66) and can be adapted to the shape of the head (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein at least one first intermediate layer (34 of Zebouni) is provided, which is designed as a spacer layer (layer 34 is configured to provide space between layer 35 and 50 of the inner fabric layer; Fig. 1 of Zebouni) and which adjoins the inner fabric layer (para 24 and Fig. 1 of Zebouni).
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
Regarding claim 9:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 6, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate layer (i.e. 34 of Zebouni) is formed (via “punch bonding” (para 23 of Zebouni) from a plurality of sticks (“plurality of small pins or posts”; para 23), which are aligned transversely to the inner fabric layer (para 23; Fig. 1 of Zebouni). Accordingly, the modified Svehaug meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate 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 inner fabric layer insofar as the “hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle a to each other” is presented in the alternative.
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Johnson, US 2015/0059055, previously cited].
Regarding claim 2:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer has at least one of the following properties: fire-resistance and flame-resistance.
However, Johnson teaches a “moisture wicking layer comprising non-woven, absorbent polymeric fibers” (claim 1) appropriate for use in combination with “a hat or helmet to prevent sweat from dripping onto the user's face” (para 2) wherein the “moisture wicking layer...can incorporate flame-resistant fibers (e.g., Nomex[])” (para 49).
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 Svehaug such that its inner fabric layer has a property of flame resistance in order to make the inner fabric layer capable of resisting flame and/or fire, as suggested by Johnson (para 49), for the purpose of wearer safety in the event of exposure to flame and/or fire.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Lamb, WO 2008/149127, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer insofar as it is configured to wick moisture and remove perspiration from the skin. Attention is drawn to extrinsic reference [Velasco, US 2014/0143939] which states that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
The modified Svehaug does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced.
However, Lamb teaches a functional fabric (“first layer 2”; p. 4 line 13, wherein layer 2 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4), and a base fabric 3 (i.e. “second layer 3”; p. 4 line 14, wherein layer 3 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4) wherein the base fabric 3 is formed from a moisture-absorbing material (base fabric 3 is “adapted to absorb moisture” (p. 4 line 14)), and the functional fabric 3 is formed from a material which has a cooling effect (“layer 2...is a temperature equalisation layer...which is adapted to cool the body”; p. 6 lines 21-23). The functional fabric 2 comprises a cooling medium (“phase change material”; Abstract) of Lamb, which is described in Lamb as being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract) and is therefore connected to the inner fabric layer and also integrally contained in the inner fabric layer such that it is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer. In addition, the cooling medium (i.e. “phase change material”) changes its aggregate state when heat is introduced (“absorb...heat as the microcapsules change from a solid to a liquid phase (p. 5 lines 1-2)). Lamb further teaches wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (by virtue of being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract of Lamb)), paraffin being provided as the coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb).
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 Svehaug such that the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced; further wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the inner fabric layer, paraffin being provided as the coolant, in order to provide additional cooling to the body via the cooling medium, as suggested by Lamb (p. 6 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 4:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed) or is absorbed by the inner fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Austin, US 5,628,065, previously cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Svehaug does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer is formed from aramid and/or para-aramid and/or modacrylic and/or an antistatically conductive, carbon-containing lightweight fibre.
Nevertheless, Austin teaches a bonnet (“Hood”; Title) wherein “firefighters wear hoods which are shaped to cover the head...Such hoods are constructed of fire retardant, thermal barrier material, such as a...aramid material...to protect a firefighter against burns in the regions covered by the hood” (col. 1 lines 13-22).
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 Svehaug such that its outer layer is formed from aramid, as in Austin, in order to protect a wearer against burns in the regions covered by the bonnet, as suggested by Austin (col. 1 lines 13-22).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938, previously cited].
Regarding claim 10:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 6, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein a second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni) is provided.
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
The modified Svehaug does not expressly disclose wherein the first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer.
However, Rosenberger teaches “various layers” of “garments such...hats” (para 61) wherein various layers are interwoven with each other; i.e. “Intermediate layer 113 is positioned below the outer layer 110 and...interwoven with outer layer 110”; para 54. “Inner layer 115 lies beneath intermediate layer(s) 113. Inner layer 115...interwoven with intermediate layer(s) 113” (para 55).
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 Svehaug such that its first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer in order to yield the predictable result of the first intermediate layer being durably secured to the second intermediate layer and the inner fabric layer by the first intermediate layer being interwoven as claimed.
Regarding claim 11:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni and Rosenberger teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein the spacer layer 34 (i.e. 34 of Zebouni, which is the first intermediate layer which is designed as a spacer layer as set forth in above addressing of claim 6) together with the second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni as set forth in above addressing of claim 10) or together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined 30 and 50 of Zebouni) form a composite layer (the combined layers form a composite layer) or wherein the spacer layer 34 together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 and the second intermediate layer 35 are a composite layer (the combined layers form and are a composite layer).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Bhatnagar, US 2013/0212763, previously cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Svehaug does not expressly disclose a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 1 and a ballistic helmet.
Nevertheless Bhatnagar teaches a helmet that is a ballistic helmet (“helmet is lightweight, has excellent ballistic resistant properties”); Abstract.
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 Svehaug such that it is combined with a ballistic helmet so as to yield a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 1 and a ballistic helmet in order to permit a wearer of the bonnet to protect his head from ballistic impact, as suggested by Bhatnagar (Abstract).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], and [Johnson, US 2015/0059055] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of [Lamb, WO 2008/149127, previously cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni and Johnson teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer insofar as it is configured to wick moisture and remove perspiration from the skin. Attention is drawn to extrinsic reference [Velasco, US 2014/0143939] which states that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
The modified Svehaug does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced, and wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the fabric layer or is absorbed by the fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant.
However, Lamb teaches a functional fabric (“first layer 2”; p. 4 line 13, wherein layer 2 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4), and a base fabric 3 (i.e. “second layer 3”; p. 4 line 14, wherein layer 3 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4) wherein the base fabric 3 is formed from a moisture-absorbing material (base fabric 3 is “adapted to absorb moisture” (p. 4 line 14)), and the functional fabric 3 is formed from a material which has a cooling effect (“layer 2...is a temperature equalisation layer...which is adapted to cool the body”; p. 6 lines 21-23). The functional fabric 2 comprises a cooling medium (“phase change material”; Abstract) of Lamb, which is described in Lamb as being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract) and is therefore connected to the inner fabric layer and also integrally contained in the inner fabric layer such that it is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer. In addition, the cooling medium (i.e. “phase change material”) changes its aggregate state when heat is introduced (“absorb...heat as the microcapsules change from a solid to a liquid phase (p. 5 lines 1-2)). Lamb further teaches wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (by virtue of being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract of Lamb)), paraffin being provided as the coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb).
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 Svehaug such that the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced; further wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the inner fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant, in order to provide additional cooling to the body via the cooling medium, as suggested by Lamb (p. 6 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 15:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni, Johnson, and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Svehaug further discloses wherein the damping layer 110 is designed as an impact protection layer (para 29) which is made of plastic or foam (“foam”; para 66) and can be adapted to the shape of the head (Fig. 1A).
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein at least one first intermediate layer (34 of Zebouni) is provided, which is designed as a spacer layer (layer 34 is configured to provide space between layer 35 and 50 of the inner fabric layer; Fig. 1 of Zebouni) and which adjoins the inner fabric layer (para 24 and Fig. 1 of Zebouni).
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055] and [Lamb, WO 2008/149127] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Austin, US 5,628,065, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni, Johnson, and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 15, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate layer (i.e. 34 of Zebouni) is formed (via “punch bonding” (para 23 of Zebouni) from a plurality of sticks (“plurality of small pins or posts”; para 23), which are aligned transversely to the inner fabric layer (para 23; Fig. 1 of Zebouni). Accordingly, the modified Svehaug meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate 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 inner fabric layer insofar as the “hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle a to each other” is presented in the alternative.
Svehaug does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer is formed from aramid and/or para-aramid and/or modacrylic and/or an antistatically conductive, carbon-containing lightweight fibre.
Austin teaches a bonnet (“Hood”; Title) wherein “firefighters wear hoods which are shaped to cover the head...Such hoods are constructed of fire retardant, thermal barrier material, such as a...aramid material...to protect a firefighter against burns in the regions covered by the hood” (col. 1 lines 13-22).
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 Svehaug such that its outer layer is formed from aramid, as in Austin, in order to protect a wearer against burns in the regions covered by the bonnet, as suggested by Austin (col. 1 lines 13-22).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055], [Lamb, WO 2008/149127], and [Austin, US 5,628,065] as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938, previously cited].
Regarding claim 17:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni, Johnson, Lamb, and Austin teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 16, as set forth above.
The modified Svehaug does not expressly disclose wherein the first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer.
However, Rosenberger teaches “various layers” of “garments such...hats” (para 61) wherein various layers are interwoven with each other; i.e. “Intermediate layer 113 is positioned below the outer layer 110 and...interwoven with outer layer 110”; para 54. “Inner layer 115 lies beneath intermediate layer(s) 113. Inner layer 115...interwoven with intermediate layer(s) 113” (para 55).
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 Svehaug such that its first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer in order to yield the predictable result of the first intermediate layer being durably secured to the second intermediate layer and the inner fabric layer by the first intermediate layer being interwoven as claimed.
The modified Svehaug further meets the limitation wherein the spacer layer 34 (i.e. 34 of Svehaug, which is the first intermediate layer which is designed as a spacer layer as set forth in above addressing of claim 6) together with the second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni as set forth in above addressing of claim 10) or together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined 30 and 50 of Zebouni) form a composite layer (the combined layers form a composite layer) or in that the spacer layer 34 together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 and the second intermediate layer 35 are a composite layer (the combined layers form and are a composite layer).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Svehaug, US 2014/0007324], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055], [Lamb, WO 2008/149127], [Austin, US 5,628,065], and [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938] as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of [Bhatnagar, US 2013/0212763, previously cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Svehaug in view of Zebouni, Johnson, Lamb, Austin, and Rosenberger teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Svehaug does not expressly disclose a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 17 and a ballistic helmet.
Nevertheless Bhatnagar teaches a helmet that is a ballistic helmet (“helmet is lightweight, has excellent ballistic resistant properties”); Abstract.
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 Svehaug such that it is combined with a ballistic helmet so as to yield a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 17 and a ballistic helmet in order to permit a wearer of the bonnet to protect his head from ballistic impact, as suggested by Bhatnagar (Abstract).
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323, provided on Applicant’s IDS of 04/04/2024] in view of [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Capuano discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A head protection bonnet 10 (i.e. “helmet underwear 10”; para 75) for wearing under a steel helmet or under a ballistic helmet (bonnet 10 is capable of being worn under “hard hat 20” (para 77) and is likewise configured to be worn under a steel helmet or under a ballistic helmet), comprising:
an outer layer 15 (i.e. “fabric layer[] 15”; para 78)
a damping layer 16 (i.e. “energy absorbing core layer 16”; para 78) at least indirectly adjoining the outer layer (para 78; Figs. 1-3)
Capuano Figs. 1-3 does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer has at least one of the following properties: fire-resistance, flame retardance, cut-resistance and puncture-resistance
However and in further view of Capuano:
Capuano as embodied in para 85 teaches a fabric layer appropriate for use is under a military helmet is “A warp knit PPS fabric such as the Gehring SHRB 32 (FR) fire resistant model filament polyester” (para 85).
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 outer layer of Capuano such that it has a property of fire resistance in order to render the outer layer capable of resisting fire and/or appropriate for use under a military helmet, as suggested by Capuano (para 85).
Capuano does not expressly disclose an inner fabric layer configured to contact the head of a user, and wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer composed of a base fabric B and a functional fabric F, with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F, wherein the base fabric B is formed from cotton or other moisture-absorbing materials and the functional fabric F is formed from a material which has a cooling effect.
Zebouni teaches a “headwear liner assembly” (Abstract) configured to be “mounted...directly onto a forehead or forefront portion of headwear, such as caps, hats, visors, helmets or the like”.
The headwear liner assembly 13 (i.e. “headwear liner 13”; para 17; Fig. 1) comprises an inner fabric (element 30 being a “nonwoven” (para 18) fabric; element 50 being “nonwovens made with...fibers”; para 19) layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined “topsheet layer 30” and “absorbent core layer 50”; para 18) configured to contact the head of a user (para 14 wherein it is noted 35 secures the liner to a headwear such that the “top or upper side of the liner is...the side of the liner that remains exposed after attachment of the liner to the headwear and which contacts the user's skin” described in para 14 such that 30 of the inner fabric layer and therefore the inner fabric layer is configured to contact the head of the user) wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer (consistent with the present disclosure as filed which states a single composite layer can comprise plural layers; p. 4 lines 25-27 of the specification of 04/04/2024) composed of a base fabric 50 and a functional fabric 30, wherein the base fabric 50 is formed from cotton (“cotton fibers...nonwovens made with”; para 19) and the functional fabric 30 is formed from a material which is moisture wicking (“moisture wicking”; para 18) and “remains relatively dry” such that the “moisture absorbed into the absorbent core layer is separated from the user’s skin” (para 5). The base fabric 50 is “absorbent of liquids”, and the liner assembly 13 is configured to promote “absorption of perspiration and other liquids” (para 7) and “to absorb perspiration, oils, sunscreen, cosmetics or other such liquids, referred to herein generally as moisture”; para 14).
Accordingly, the material that is “moisture-wicking” as described by Zebouni wherein “moisture passes through” the functional fabric 30 (Zebouni para 18) is formed from a material which has a cooling effect as claimed. Attention is drawn to extrinsic reference [Velasco, US 2014/0143939] which states that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
As embodied in paras 18-19, Zebouni teaches “The basis weighting of the topsheet layer 30 is preferably from 10 gsm to 50 or more gsm” and the “absorbent core layer 50 is...preferably being from 50 to 500 or more gsm”. Accordingly Zebouni provides a basis weight range that includes 10 – 50 grams per square meter for the base fabric 50 and 50-500 grams per square meter for the functional fabric 30. The ranges provided by Zebouni therefore overlap the claimed range of “with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F” insofar as the ranges of Zebouni include basis weight combinations that are 60-80% base fabric and 20-40% functional fabric, for example: providing the base fabric at 175 grams per square meter and the functional fabric at 30 grams per square meter results in 70.7% base fabric and 29.3% functional fabric because 175/(175+30) = 70.7% and 30/(175+30) = 29.3%. In like manner, other combinations of base fabric and functional fabric basis weights yield values within the claimed ranges; for example: providing the base fabric at 250 grams per square meter and the functional fabric at 40 grams per square meter results in 72.4% base fabric and 27.6 % functional fabric. Accordingly, the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art. Attention is drawn to MPEP 2144.05, which states, in relevant part: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Because Zebouni is concerned with desired moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separating moisture absorbed into the base fabric from the wearer’s skin, and provides a range 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 “with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer” through routine experimentation in order to provide desired inner fabric properties. The claimed % base fabric and % functional fabric are merely optimum or workable percents and the % base fabric and % functional fabric are expected to affect moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separation of moisture away from a wearer of the inner fabric.
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 Capuano such that it is provided with a headwear liner assembly comprising an inner fabric layer configured to contact the head of a user, and wherein the inner fabric layer is a single composite layer composed of a base fabric B and a functional fabric F, with 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F in the inner fabric layer, wherein the base fabric B is formed from cotton functional fabric F is formed from a material which has a cooling effect in order to promote moisture wicking and moisture absorption, as suggested by Zebouni (paras 7, 14, and 18), wherein the degree of moisture wicking, moisture absorbance, and separation of moisture from the wearer afforded by providing the functional fabric and base fabric at 60 % - 80 % base fabric B and 20 % - 40 % functional fabric F is desirable to a user of the bonnet according to his or her preferences and manner of use of the bonnet.
Regarding claim 5:
Capuano in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Capuano further discloses wherein the damping layer 16 is designed as an impact protection layer (via absorbing energy as described in paras 78-79) which is made of plastic (“elastomeric material such as polyurethane”; para 79) or foam and can be adapted to the shape of the head (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 6:
Capuano in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein at least one first intermediate layer (34 of Zebouni) is provided, which is designed as a spacer layer (layer 34 is configured to provide space between layer 35 and 50 of the inner fabric layer; Fig. 1 of Zebouni) and which adjoins the inner fabric layer (para 24 and Fig. 1 of Zebouni).
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
Regarding claim 9:
Capuano in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 6, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate layer (i.e. 34 of Zebouni) is formed (via “punch bonding” (para 23 of Zebouni) from a plurality of sticks (“plurality of small pins or posts”; para 23), which are aligned transversely to the inner fabric layer (para 23; Fig. 1 of Zebouni). Accordingly, the modified Capuano meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate 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 inner fabric layer insofar as the “hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle a to each other” is presented in the alternative.
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323], and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Johnson, US 2015/0059055].
Regarding claim 2:
Capuano in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer has at least one of the following properties: fire-resistance and flame-resistance.
However, Johnson teaches a “moisture wicking layer comprising non-woven, absorbent polymeric fibers” (claim 1) appropriate for use in combination with “a hat or helmet to prevent sweat from dripping onto the user's face” (para 2) wherein the “moisture wicking layer...can incorporate flame-resistant fibers (e.g., Nomex[])” (para 49).
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 Capuano such that its inner fabric layer has a property of flame resistance in order to make the inner fabric layer capable of resisting flame and/or fire, as suggested by Johnson (para 49), for the purpose of wearer safety in the event of exposure to flame and/or fire.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Lamb, WO 2008/149127, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Capuano in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer insofar as it is configured to wick moisture and remove perspiration from the skin. Attention is drawn to extrinsic reference [Velasco, US 2014/0143939] which states that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
The modified Capuano does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced.
However, Lamb teaches a functional fabric (“first layer 2”; p. 4 line 13, wherein layer 2 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4), and a base fabric 3 (i.e. “second layer 3”; p. 4 line 14, wherein layer 3 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4) wherein the base fabric 3 is formed from a moisture-absorbing material (base fabric 3 is “adapted to absorb moisture” (p. 4 line 14)), and the functional fabric 3 is formed from a material which has a cooling effect (“layer 2...is a temperature equalisation layer...which is adapted to cool the body”; p. 6 lines 21-23). The functional fabric 2 comprises a cooling medium (“phase change material”; Abstract) of Lamb, which is described in Lamb as being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract) and is therefore connected to the inner fabric layer and also integrally contained in the inner fabric layer such that it is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer. In addition, the cooling medium (i.e. “phase change material”) changes its aggregate state when heat is introduced (“absorb...heat as the microcapsules change from a solid to a liquid phase (p. 5 lines 1-2)). Lamb further teaches wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (by virtue of being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract of Lamb)), paraffin being provided as the coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb).
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 Capuano such that the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced; further wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the inner fabric layer, paraffin being provided as the coolant, in order to provide additional cooling to the body via the cooling medium, as suggested by Lamb (p. 6 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 4:
Capuoano in view of Zebouni and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 3, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed) or is absorbed by the inner fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant (see above treatment of claim 3 where the limitation is addressed).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Austin, US 5,628,065, previously cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Capuano in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Capuano does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer is formed from aramid and/or para-aramid and/or modacrylic and/or an antistatically conductive, carbon-containing lightweight fibre.
Austin teaches a bonnet (“Hood”; Title) wherein “firefighters wear hoods which are shaped to cover the head...Such hoods are constructed of fire retardant, thermal barrier material, such as a...aramid material...to protect a firefighter against burns in the regions covered by the hood” (col. 1 lines 13-22).
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 Capuano such that its outer layer is formed from aramid, as in Austin, in order to protect a wearer against burns in the regions covered by the bonnet, as suggested by Austin (col. 1 lines 13-22).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938, previously cited].
Regarding claim 10:
Capuano in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 6, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein a second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni) is provided.
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
The modified Capuano does not expressly disclose wherein the first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer.
However, Rosenberger teaches “various layers” of “garments such...hats” (para 61) wherein various layers are interwoven with each other; i.e. “Intermediate layer 113 is positioned below the outer layer 110 and...interwoven with outer layer 110”; para 54. “Inner layer 115 lies beneath intermediate layer(s) 113. Inner layer 115...interwoven with intermediate layer(s) 113” (para 55).
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 Capuano such that its first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer in order to yield the predictable result of the first intermediate layer being durably secured to the second intermediate layer and the inner fabric layer by the first intermediate layer being interwoven as claimed.
Regarding claim 11:
Capuano in view of Zebouni and Rosenberger teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 10, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein the spacer layer 34 (i.e. 34 of Zebouni, which is the first intermediate layer which is designed as a spacer layer as set forth in above addressing of claim 6) together with the second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni as set forth in above addressing of claim 10) or together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined 30 and 50 of Zebouni) form a composite layer (the combined layers form a composite layer) or wherein the spacer layer 34 together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 and the second intermediate layer 35 are a composite layer (the combined layers form and are a composite layer).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323] and [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Bhatnagar, US 2013/0212763, previously cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Capuano in view of Zebouni teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Capuano does not expressly disclose a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 1 and a ballistic helmet.
Nevertheless Bhatnagar teaches a helmet that is a ballistic helmet (“helmet is lightweight, has excellent ballistic resistant properties”); Abstract.
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 Capuano such that it is combined with a ballistic helmet so as to yield a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 1 and a ballistic helmet in order to permit a wearer of the bonnet to protect his head from ballistic impact, as suggested by Bhatnagar (Abstract).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281] and [Johnson, US 2015/0059055] as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of [Lamb, WO 2008/149127, previously cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Capuano in view of Zebouni and Johnson teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 2, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer insofar as it is configured to wick moisture and remove perspiration from the skin. Attention is drawn to extrinsic reference [Velasco, US 2014/0143939] which states that a component that provides moisture wicking and removes perspiration from the skin has a cooling effect (i.e. “cool the wearer” (Velasco para 54)).
The modified Capuano does not expressly disclose wherein the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced, and wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the fabric layer or is absorbed by the fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant.
However, Lamb teaches a functional fabric (“first layer 2”; p. 4 line 13, wherein layer 2 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4), and a base fabric 3 (i.e. “second layer 3”; p. 4 line 14, wherein layer 3 is a fabric; p. 6 line 4) wherein the base fabric 3 is formed from a moisture-absorbing material (base fabric 3 is “adapted to absorb moisture” (p. 4 line 14)), and the functional fabric 3 is formed from a material which has a cooling effect (“layer 2...is a temperature equalisation layer...which is adapted to cool the body”; p. 6 lines 21-23). The functional fabric 2 comprises a cooling medium (“phase change material”; Abstract) of Lamb, which is described in Lamb as being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract) and is therefore connected to the inner fabric layer and also integrally contained in the inner fabric layer such that it is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer. In addition, the cooling medium (i.e. “phase change material”) changes its aggregate state when heat is introduced (“absorb...heat as the microcapsules change from a solid to a liquid phase (p. 5 lines 1-2)). Lamb further teaches wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb) and is integrated into the inner fabric layer (by virtue of being part of the functional fabric 2 (Abstract of Lamb)), paraffin being provided as the coolant (“paraffins”; p. 4 line 25 of Lamb).
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 Capuano such that the inner fabric layer is designed as a cooling layer and has a cooling medium connected to the inner fabric layer or a cooling medium which is integrally contained in the inner fabric layer and is configured to remain in the inner fabric layer, the cooling medium changing its aggregate state when heat is introduced; further wherein the cooling medium comprises a coolant and is integrated into the inner fabric layer, with paraffin being provided as the coolant, in order to provide additional cooling to the body via the cooling medium, as suggested by Lamb (p. 6 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 15:
Capuano in view of Zebouni, Johnson, and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Capuano further discloses wherein the damping layer 16 is designed as an impact protection layer (via absorbing energy as described in paras 78-79) which is made of plastic (“elastomeric material such as polyurethane”; para 79) or foam and can be adapted to the shape of the head (Figs. 4-5).
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein at least one first intermediate layer (34 of Zebouni) is provided, which is designed as a spacer layer (layer 34 is configured to provide space between layer 35 and 50 of the inner fabric layer; Fig. 1 of Zebouni) and which adjoins the inner fabric layer (para 24 and Fig. 1 of Zebouni).
(Attention is drawn to above treatment of claim 1, wherein the bonnet is modified such that it is provided with headwear liner assembly 13 of Zebouni; headwear liner assembly 13 comprises, in addition to inner fabric layer 30, 50, the additional layers 34 and 35.)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055] and [Lamb, WO 2008/149127] as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of [Austin, US 5,628,065, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Capuano in view of Zebouni, Johnson, and Lamb teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 15, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate layer (i.e. 34 of Zebouni) is formed (via “punch bonding” (para 23 of Zebouni) from a plurality of sticks (“plurality of small pins or posts”; para 23), which are aligned transversely to the inner fabric layer (para 23; Fig. 1 of Zebouni). Accordingly, the modified Capuano meets the limitation wherein the first intermediate 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 inner fabric layer insofar as the “hair arranged parallel to each other or at an acute angle a to each other” is presented in the alternative.
Capuano does not expressly disclose wherein the outer layer is formed from aramid and/or para-aramid and/or modacrylic and/or an antistatically conductive, carbon-containing lightweight fibre.
Austin teaches a bonnet (“Hood”; Title) wherein “firefighters wear hoods which are shaped to cover the head...Such hoods are constructed of fire retardant, thermal barrier material, such as a...aramid material...to protect a firefighter against burns in the regions covered by the hood” (col. 1 lines 13-22).
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 Capuano such that its outer layer is formed from aramid, as in Austin, in order to protect a wearer against burns in the regions covered by the bonnet, as suggested by Austin (col. 1 lines 13-22).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055], [Lamb, WO 2008/149127], and [Austin, US 5,628,065] as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938, previously cited].
Regarding claim 17:
Capuano in view of Zebouni, Johnson, Lamb, and Austin teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 16, as set forth above.
The modified Capuano does not expressly disclose wherein the first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer.
However, Rosenberger teaches “various layers” of “garments such...hats” (para 61) wherein various layers are interwoven with each other; i.e. “Intermediate layer 113 is positioned below the outer layer 110 and...interwoven with outer layer 110”; para 54. “Inner layer 115 lies beneath intermediate layer(s) 113. Inner layer 115...interwoven with intermediate layer(s) 113” (para 55).
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 Capuano such that its first intermediate layer is interwoven with the second intermediate layer and with the inner fabric layer in order to yield the predictable result of the first intermediate layer being durably secured to the second intermediate layer and the inner fabric layer by the first intermediate layer being interwoven as claimed.
The modified Capuano further meets the limitation wherein the spacer layer 34 (i.e. 34 of Svehaug, which is the first intermediate layer which is designed as a spacer layer as set forth in above addressing of claim 6) together with the second intermediate layer 35 (i.e. 35 of Zebouni as set forth in above addressing of claim 10) or together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 (i.e. the combined 30 and 50 of Zebouni) form a composite layer (the combined layers form a composite layer) or in that the spacer layer 34 together with the inner fabric layer 30, 50 and the second intermediate layer 35 are a composite layer (the combined layers form and are a composite layer).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Capuano, US 2014/0007323], [Zebouni, US 2013/0247281], [Johnson, US 2015/0059055], [Lamb, WO 2008/149127], [Austin, US 5,628,065], and [Rosenberger, US 2005/0095938] as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of [Bhatnagar, US 2013/0212763, previously cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Capuano in view of Zebouni, Johnson, Lamb, Austin, and Rosenberger teach The head protection bonnet according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Capuano does not expressly disclose a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 17 and a ballistic helmet.
Nevertheless Bhatnagar teaches a helmet that is a ballistic helmet (“helmet is lightweight, has excellent ballistic resistant properties”); Abstract.
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 Capuano such that it is combined with a ballistic helmet so as to yield a system comprising a head protection bonnet according to claim 17 and a ballistic helmet in order to permit a wearer of the bonnet to protect his head from ballistic impact, as suggested by Bhatnagar (Abstract).
Conclusion
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