DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on June 3, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-6, 8 and 10-15 have been amended; claims 7 and 17 are canceled; and claim 18 has been added. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18.
Examiner notes that Applicant attempted formal responses on February 20, 2026 and on March 20, 2026. However, both of these responses were deemed non-compliant, as explained in the notices mailed out on March 2, 2026 and May 22, 2026, respectively. Therefore, any amendments to the Claims, Specification or Drawings made in the February 20, 2026 and March 20, 2026 responses were not formally entered. Applicant appears to have made corrections in one or both of these non-compliant responses, which were not carried over in the formal June 3, 2026 response that was entered. Accordingly, some of the objections made in the non-final Office Action mailed on November 20, 2026 are being maintained, since these corrections were not included in the most recent, entered response filed on June 3, 2026.
Title of Invention
The following title is suggested: "Protective Helmet". The terms “A” and “Novel” are not considered as part of the title of an invention, and should not be included. See MPEP 606.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 3-C and 4-C represent disconnected elements without a bracket surrounding the elements. It appears that these Figs. are meant to represent the placement of the attachment means 305 and 405 with the remainder of the helmet not visible. However, whenever a figure includes a collection of disconnected elements, they require a bracket surround the collection of elements with an associated reference numeral included to identify the elements.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 8 “the first set of shock-absorbing liners comprises a low friction layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). None of the drawings appear to show that the first set #102 includes a low friction layer #118. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification (Abstract)
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains statements that begin with phrases which can be implied (first sentence begins “Provides [sic] is…”; second sentence begins “Also provided is…”). Additionally, the Abstract contains statements on the alleged merits or value of the claimed invention or on its speculative application (i.e. the Abstract refers to the helmet design being “novel”). See MPEP 1826. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification (Disclosure)
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 3, Line 9 includes acronyms “pc” and “abs” in lowercase. These should be in uppercase (i.e. “PC”, “ABS”).
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms Teflon (Page 14, Line 10; Page 15, Line 4) and Kevlar (Page 10, Lines 20 and 24; Page 14, Line 15; Page 16, Line 7), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be completely capitalized wherever they appear and, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. (i.e. “TEFLON®, a type of polytetrafluoroethylene”; “KEVLAR®, a type of para-aramid fiber”)
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “attachment means” (specifically in claim 6). Claim 6 includes a listing of structural examples of attachment means, so claim 6 does not meet the three-pronged test for 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 1: “two” should recite “first and second”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “wherein the attachment means are configured to provide a finite amount of play in the connection between of the second set of shock-absorbing liners relative to the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners”. The equivalent of this functional language appears to already exist in independent claim 1 (lines 9-12: “wherein the attachment means are frangible and configured to: permit finite movement of the second set of shock-absorbing liners relative to the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners”), from which claim 3 depends. Therefore, claim 3 is deemed to not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Correction is required.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-16 and 18 (claim 3 as best as can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Salmini et al. (hereinafter “Salmini”) (USPN 10,143,258) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Salmini in view of Wibby (US 2015/0223547).
Regarding independent claim 1, Salmini discloses a protective helmet (#1) comprising: an outer shell (#5) having an inward surface (see Fig. 1; the inward surface is the surface of outer shell #5 that is illustrated to be directly against inner padding #6); a first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners attached to the inward surface of the outer shell (“at least one inner padding #6” is a first set of shock-absorbing liners attached to the inward surface of outer shell #5); a second set of shock-absorbing liners having multiple parts (pads #7 collectively define a second set of shock-absorbing liners, each pad being a distinct part of the second set; Examiner notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)) that can move and deform independently of each other when an impact force is applied to the outer shell of the protective helmet (the pads #7 are independently affixed to the inner padding #6 via respective connecting means #10, which enables the pads to move and deform independently of each other in such event of a hypothetical impact force applied to the outer shell; Examiner notes the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense); and a fitting liner (combination of shearing layer #12, dissipating layer #17 and outer layer #15 define an overall fitting liner) covering one or more of the parts of the second set of shock-absorbing liners (as shown in Figs. 6 and 7, the layers #12/17/15 cover the layer #13 of pads #7), attachment means connecting an inward surface of the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners to the second set of shock-absorbing liners (connecting means #10 are attachment means; connecting means #10 are located between the inward surface of inner padding #6 (i.e. first set of shock-absorbing liners) and the outer surface of the pads #7 (i.e. second set of shock-absorbing liners); Salmini discloses that the connecting means #10 can be a wide variety of potential types of connections, with both permanent and temporary examples (Col. 5, Lines 37-40; Col. 6, Lines 9-11 of Salmini); Applicant recites “attachment means”, which is being interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a non-structural term “means” coupled with the functional language “attachment” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Therefore, “attachment means” as recited in claim 1 is limited to the examples of attachment means recited in the Specification and its/their functional equivalents. See MPEP 2181.), wherein the attachment means are configured to: permit finite movement of the second set of shock-absorbing liners relative to the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners when the impact force applied to the outer shell of the protective helmet is less than an upper threshold (since the connecting means #10 are affixed between the pads #7 (i.e. second set) and inner padding #6 (i.e. first set), there would be a finite amount of movement (i.e. play) in such connection, depending on the amount of force encountered, prior to catastrophic deformation (i.e. catastrophic deformation occurring at an upper threshold, which would generally be the maximum strength level had by the connecting means #10)); and wherein a contact area between the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners and the second set of shock-absorbing liners is smaller than an inner surface area of the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners (as shown in Fig. 1, there is a larger inner surface are of inner padding #6 (i.e. first set of shock-absorbing liners) than there is a contact area between the inner padding #6 and the pads #7, which have contact areas where the connecting means #10 are located; Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)). Salmini teaches all of the structural limitations recited in claim 1, but does not specifically describe the functionality of the structure in terms where it can be definitively determined that the connecting means #10 (i.e. attachment means) are frangible, such that they are configured to disconnect or rupture to permit unrestricted movement of the second set of shock-absorbing liners relative to the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners when the impact force exceeds the upper threshold (although, as noted above, if a catastrophic amount of force were to be applied to the helmet, the connecting means #10 would be reasonably understood to break at such an application of force that would exceed the strength of the connecting means #10; Examiner notes that the adjective term "frangible" is very broad and has a definition of "[c]apable of being broken; breakable" (Adjective Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)). Examiner notes that Salmini does disclose that part of its helmet lining structure can be deform plastically, viscoplastically or elastoplastically due to a shear stress (Col. 4, Lines 22-24; Col. 8, Lines 27-32; Col. 10, Lines 30-31; Col. 11, Lines 6-7; claim 4 of Salmini; i.e. plastic deformation is permanent deformation to the shape, as opposed to purely elastic deformation which can recover the original shape), so Salmini does not teach against its structures being frangible/rupturable upon a certain threshold of force being applied thereto. However, Wibby teaches a helmet with a connecting means (tethers #130) arranged between helmet layers, wherein the tethers are designed to break when exposed to a predetermined tension, thereby permitting the tethers #130 to dissipate a portion of the impact force, wherein the tethers are replaceable and selectable based on a predetermined tension at which the tether is designed to break (¶ 0129 of Wibby). It would at least have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have designed the connecting means #10 of Salmini to break when exposed to a predetermined force magnitude, thereby permitting them to dissipate a portion of the impact force, as taught by Wibby. As a result of the modification, the connecting means #10 would be definitively frangible and configured to disconnect or rupture to permit unrestricted movement of the second set of shock-absorbing liners relative to the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners when the impact force exceeds the upper threshold (as such functionality is taught by Wibby and incorporated into Salmini’s helmet via the modification explained above).
Regarding claim 2, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that each of the one or more parts of the second set of shock-absorbing liners are separately attached to the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners using at least one of the attachment means (as noted above, the connecting means #10 are located between separate instances of pads #7 (i.e. second set of shock-absorbing liners) and the inner padding #6 (i.e. first set of shock-absorbing liners)).
Regarding claim 3, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the attachment means are configured to provide a finite amount of play in the connection between of the second set of shock-absorbing liners relative to the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners (as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above; since the connecting means #10 are affixed between the pads #7 (i.e. second set) and inner padding #6 (i.e. first set), there would be a finite amount of movement (i.e. play) in such connection, depending on the amount of force encountered, prior to catastrophic deformation).
Regarding claim 4, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the attachment means further attach to the fitting liner (as noted above, shearable layer #12 is part of the overall fitting liner; shearing layer #12 can be a polyester fabric (Col. 8, Lines 58-60 of Salmini), wherein connecting means #10 is shown to be affixed to the top surface of layer #12 (Figs. 6-7 of Salmini)).
Regarding claim 5, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the attachment means are flexible and are adapted to elongate elastically or plastically when the impact force applied to the outer shell of the protective helmet exceeds a lower threshold that is less than the upper threshold, and when the impact force is less than the upper threshold (Salmini teaches that the connecting means #10 can be a fabric layer, such as Dacron (i.e. polyester, which has some degree of flexibility, elasticity and plasticity), wherein there exists at least some intermediate level of force (lower threshold) between zero and a catastrophic breaking-level force (i.e. upper threshold) that permits some degree of elastic/plastic movement).
Regarding claim 6, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the attachment means are made of any mechanical or chemical attachment means selected from the group consisting of: a hook-and-loop fastener, a pin, a snap pin, a snap pin basket, a snap fastener, a latch-and-hook fastener, clips, a hinge, a press-fitting, a hook plastic insert and a loop rubber, a rubber holder, a mesh holder, a silicone rubber holder, a tie, a connector, a spring, a buckle, a heat-seal, sewing, fusion, an elastic, a fitting, adhesive, an insert, a screw, a railing, a button, a buttonhole, and a rivet, or a combination thereof (many of these examples are recited throughout Salmini’s disclosure, including buttons (Col. 5, Lines 53-56), snap-fit (Col. 5, Line 45), hook-and-loop (Col. 5, Line 67 through Col. 6, Line 2), among others).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the second set of shock-absorbing liners comprises a low friction layer (claim 9) (pads #7 (i.e. second set of shock-absorbing liners) could have an inner layer #14 of low friction material, such as PTFE, nylon, lubricant-coated supports, nanotechnologies or the like (Col. 9, Lines 10-14)), wherein the low friction layer comprises a lubricant, a plastic, a rail, a sliding groove, a wax, a powder, a polymer, an elastomer, a rubber, a polycarbonate, an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, a carbon fiber, a silicone rubber, a silicone lubricant, a fluid-filled compartment, a fabric, or a fiber, or a combination thereof (claim 18) (at least the PTFE and nylon examples provided above meet the limitation of “polymer”).
Regarding claim 11, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the attachment means are configured to elongate, rupture or dislocate during the impact force to allow the second set of shock-absorbing liners to move relative to the first set (at least some amount of force can be applied that would cause rupture/catastrophic failure of the connecting means #10 past a certain threshold, such a threshold being dependent on the material and/or mechanism of the connecting means #10 utilized, especially in view of Wibby’s teachings being applied to Salmini’s helmet in the 35 U.S.C. 103 alternative aspect of the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection made against claim 1 above; such rupture/catastrophic failure would result in the connecting means #10 no longer adhering the inner padding #6 with the pads #7, thus allowing for unrestricted movement therebetween).
Regarding claim 12, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the second set of shock-absorbing liners are comprised of materials with a similar or different density than the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners (Col. 4, Lines 15-21 of Salmini describe examples of inner padding #6 materials, including polyurethane; Col. 7, Lines 32-26 describe examples of the material for shearable layer #12 that can be used to form a part of pads #7, including polyurethane; i.e. if both are polyurethane, then there would be a similar density involved; also, the examples of the inner padding include some materials that are different from some of the materials listed in the examples of shearable layer #12, including there would be a different density; Examiner notes that claim 12 essentially does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention because any two materials can be considered to be either or similar density or of different density).
Regarding claim 13, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the second set of shock-absorbing liners are made of different materials than the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners (Col. 4, Lines 15-21 of Salmini describe examples of inner padding #6 materials, including expanded polystyrene, for one; Col. 7, Lines 32-26 describe examples of the material for shearable layer #12 that can be used to form a part of pads #7, including EVA, for one; expanded polystyrene and EVA are different materials disclosed as examples of each of the inner padding (i.e. first set of shock-absorbing liners) and pads (i.e. second set of shock-absorbing liners)).
Regarding claim 14, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the [first and second] sets of shock-absorbing liners comprise micro-porosity, macro-porosity, a thin-walled structure, a fluid-filled compartment, a truss structure, a lattice structure, an auxetic structure, a channeled structure, an open cavity, a closed cavity, or a hole, or a combination thereof (Col. 4, Lines 15-21 of Salmini describe examples of inner padding #6 (i.e. first set of shock-absorbing liners) materials, including open-cell and closed-cell (i.e. open cavity and closed cavity) foams; Col. 7, Lines 32-26 describe examples of the material for shearable layer #12 that can be used to form a part of pads #7, including EVA, which is a closed cell (i.e. closed cavity) foam).
Regarding claim 15, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that the first set of one or more shock-absorbing liners, or the second set of shock-absorbing liners, or both comprise at least some of the attachment means (see Fig. 1-3 of Salmini; since the connecting means #10 is affixed to both surfaces (i.e. inner surface of inner padding #6 and outer surface of pad #7), then the connecting means #10 could be interpreted as being comprised by either or both of the inner padding #6 (i.e. first set of shock-absorbing liners) and/or pads #7(i.e. second set of shock-absorbing liners)).
Regarding claim 16, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and further that one or more shapes and sizes are defined to be used repeatedly for all of the multiple parts of the second set of shock-absorbing liners (there is nothing that prohibits the user from repeatedly using the pads #7 (i.e. second set of shock-absorbing liners); the pads are three-dimensional structures, so they all have at least one shape and size).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmini (or Salmini view of Wibby) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halldin (US 2013/0042397).
Regarding claim 8, Salmini anticipates (or at least Salmini in view of Wibby renders obvious) all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not disclose that the inner padding #6 (i.e. first set of shock-absorbing liners) comprises a low friction layer.
Halldin discloses a helmet with an inner padding layer that is rotationally moveable relative to an underlying layer, wherein the inner padding layer #2 can include a sliding facilitator layer #5 on its inner surface, wherein the sliding facilitator layer #5 may be a low friction material, including PTFE, a waxy polymer, a powder material infused with a lubricant, among others (¶ 0040, 0044 of Halldin).
Salmini (or Salmini in view of Wibby) and Halldin teach analogous inventions in the field of helmets with layers that move relative to one another upon an impact force. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the low friction, sliding facilitator layer #5 of Halldin to the inner surface of the inner padding #6 in Salmini in order to promote the intended relative movement between the inner padding #6 and the pads #7 with the low friction interface layer, as taught by Halldin. As a result of the modification, the first set of shock-absorbing liners would comprise a low friction layer on its inner surface.
Regarding claim 10, the modified helmet of Salmini (i.e. Salmini in view of Halldin, or alternatively, Salmini view of Wibby and Halldin) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8, as set forth above, and further that the low friction layer comprise a lubricant, a plastic, a rail, a sliding groove, a wax, a powder, a polymer, an elastomer, a rubber, a polycarbonate, an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, a carbon fiber, a silicone rubber, a silicone lubricant, a fluid-filled compartment, a fabric, or a fiber, or a combination thereof (the low friction layer incorporated into Salmini from the teachings of Halldin is disclosed by Halldin to be able to be formed from a powder infused with a lubricant, as well as a waxy polymer (¶ 0044 of Halldin), both being examples of a combination of examples listed in the grouping in claim 10).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Any arguments deemed relevant to the updated ground(s) of rejection will be addressed below.
Applicant argues: “the term ‘frangible’ has a specific meaning and describes an attachment that is mechanically weak or intentionally breakable under certain load conditions, such that it fails or detaches when subjected to a threshold force” (Examiner notes that this explanation of the term is not recited anywhere in the originally-filed disclosure). This argument is not found persuasive because the term itself has a broader definition: "[c]apable of being broken; breakable" (Adjective Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). The claims fail to distinguish “frangible” to a level of detail that would overcome a reasonable interpretation of frangible meaning “breakable” or “capable of being broken”. Applicant’s disclosure provides no explicit definition for “frangible”, and therefore the claims need not be interpreted in such a narrow manner as described by Applicant in their remarks. Applicant’s Specification, as originally-filed, only mentions the term “frangible” twice: “The attachment means are frangible in order to rupture when the impact force exceeds a second threshold to allow unrestricted movement between the first set and the second set of shock- absorbing liners.” (Page 3, Lines 4-7) and “In an embodiment, the attachment means are frangible and designed to rupture or disconnect when the applied force to the helmet exceeds a certain limit.” (Page 8, Lines 29-30). In both of these descriptions, the broad definition of “breaking” and “capable of being broken” is consistent with such a description in the context of the helmet’s structures, because the structures of the helmet are not indestructible (i.e. they are not incapable of being broken, as at least some amount of force can be applied to cause the materials that form the helmet’s structures to be destroyed).
Applicant also argues that “Salmini teaches away from frangible connecting means by preferring connecting means that permit elastically yieldable points of connection between the at least one pad and the shell” and that “elastically yieldable” “implies that the connecting means of Salmini are configured to deform (not rupture or disconnect) when a force is applied and then return to their original shape and size when the force is removed” (Page 15 of Remarks). The argument that Salmini teaches away from the connections being frangible is not found persuasive because Salmini teaches that many of the components are plastically, viscoplastically or elastoplastically deformable, as explained in the updated art rejections above (Col. 4, Lines 22-24; Col. 8, Lines 27-32; Col. 10, Lines 30-31; Col. 11, Lines 6-7; claim 4 of Salmini; i.e. plastic deformation is permanent deformation to the shape, as opposed to purely elastic deformation which can recover the original shape). It is further noted that Salmini teaches that the connecting means could include hook-and-loop fasteners (Velcro is described as removable type in Col. 5, Line 66-Col. 6, Line 2 of Salmini), wherein hook-and-loop fasteners do, in fact, have an upper force threshold of the connection between the hooks and loops before being broken/torn apart from one another (i.e. a ruptured and disconnected fastening). Applicant’s own claim 6, which depends from independent claim 1, discloses that the attachment means can include hook-and-loop fasteners. Accordingly, the applicability of the Salmini reference is deemed proper, and is maintained in the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues against the combination of Salmini in view of Halldin, however Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the manner in which Halldin is being relied upon in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Halldin is not being relied upon for teaching a frangible attachment means, but instead for teaching the low friction layer in an inner padding thereof. Accordingly, the applicability of the Salmini reference combined with the Halldin reference is deemed proper, and is maintained in the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon in an art rejection above is deemed relevant in the field of helmets with multiple layers that have connections that can buckle/break at a certain threshold of impact force.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at (571)272-5559. 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
