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 amendment filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 14-33 and 35-40 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 04/17/2026.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "a cup having an open top and side walls extending to a base formed by a closed end" and "wherein the shock absorber element closed ends are free and unattached to one another about the closed end";
In claim 1, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the liner is separate and independent of the shock absorber panel" and "wherein the shock absorbing elements are hollow and free from the liner being disposed therein";
In claim 28, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "a cup having an open top and side walls extending to a base formed by a closed end" and "wherein the shock absorber element closed ends are free and unattached to one another about the closed end";
In claim 28, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "wherein the liner is separate and independent of the shock absorber panel".
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 is objected to for having multiple periods. Each claim must begin with a capital letter and end with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 28 is objected to as it sets forth a plurality of elements; however, the plurality of elements are not separated by a line indentation. 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP 608.01(m) require each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 28, line 4, "comprising of" appears to read "comprising".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a first limitation "wherein each of the shock absorbing elements comprises a cup having an open top and side walls extending to a base formed by a closed end" and a second limitation "wherein the shock absorber element closed ends are free and unattached to one another about the closed end", which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear which structures are being referred to by "base". Is the "base" a base of each of the shock absorbing elements, a base of a single cup, or any other structure that can be considered as a base? Second, it is also unclear what is being referred to by "closed end". A closed end of each of the shock absorbing elements? A closed end of a single cup? Third, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the shock absorber element closed ends" in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that each of the shock absorbing elements comprises a cup, each of the cups having an open top and side walls extending to a base formed by a closed end, wherein the closed ends of the cups are free and unattached to one another about each of the closed ends.
Claim 28 recites a first limitation "wherein each of the shock absorbing elements comprises a cup having an open top and side walls extending to a base formed by a closed end" and a second limitation "wherein the shock absorber element closed ends are free and unattached to one another about the closed end", which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear which structures are being referred to by "base". Is the "base" a base of each of the shock absorbing elements, a base of a single cup, or any other structure that can be considered as a base? Second, it is also unclear what is being referred to by "closed end". A closed end of each of the shock absorbing elements? A closed end of a single cup? Third, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the shock absorber element closed ends" in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that each of the shock absorbing elements comprises a cup, each of the cups having an open top and side walls extending to a base formed by a closed end, wherein the closed ends of the cups are free and unattached to one another about each of the closed ends.
Claim 28 recites the limitations "wherein a liner is interposed between an inside surface of the helmet shell and the shock absorber panel", "wherein the interconnectors and open tops of the shock absorber elements are in contact with the liner and the liner and shock absorber elements are independent and separate of one another", and "wherein the shock absorber elements are free from the liner being disposed therein", which render the claim indefinite. The preamble of the claim recites "[a] shock absorber panel for a helmet"; however, the above limitations are directed to configurations when in use, which are beyond the scope of a shock absorber panel. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 31 recites the limitation a plurality of discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements connected together by live hinge elements", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim depends from claim 28, and claim 28 has previously set forth a plurality of interconnected discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements connected together by live hinge elements. It is unclear the discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements and live hinge elements in claim 31 are the same discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements and live hinge elements or different. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements and live hinge elements in claim 31 are the same elements in claim 28.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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 31 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. Claim 31 is dependent from claim 38, but fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 28-33, 35-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ERB (US 2018/0343953 A1).
Regarding claim 28, ERB discloses a shock absorber panel (a TPU crown shock absorbing element 160; figs. 67-70; para. 0165) for a helmet (helmet 1; figs. 8-9; para. 0153) to locate in use between a helmet shell and a wearer's head over at least a crown of the wearer's head (figs. 8-9; paras. 0153, 0165), wherein the shock absorber panel comprising of plurality of interconnected discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements (hollow frusto-conical projections 162; figs. 67-70; para. 0165) to, in concert, reduce transfer of shock forces encountered by the shell to the wearer's head (figs. 8-9,67-70; paras. 0153, 0165) wherein each of the shock absorbing elements are in the form of a cup (hollow frusto-conical projections; figs. 67-70; para. 0165) having an open top and side walls extending to a base formed by a closed end (hollow frusto-conical projections having closed distal ends; figs. 67-70; para. 0165), wherein interconnectors (connecting ribs; figs. 67, 70; para. 0165) are attached around the open tops of the shock absorbing elements (see figs. 67, 70) to connect the shock absorbing elements together (see figs. 67, 70; para. 0165) and provide a live hinge flexible attachment of the shock absorbing elements together (figs. 67, 70; para. 0165), and wherein the shock absorber element closed ends are free and unattached to one another about the closed end (see figs. 67, 69).
Regarding the limitations wherein a liner is interposed between an inside surface of the helmet shell and the shock absorber panel, wherein the interconnectors and open tops of the shock absorber elements are in contact with the liner and the liner and shock absorber elements are independent and separate of one another, and wherein the shock absorber elements are free from the liner being disposed therein, the liner is not in the scope of the claimed shock absorber panel and the limitations do not provide any structural feature of the shock absorber panel. The shock absorber panel of ERB meets the claimed structural requirements.
Regarding claim 29, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorber panel is of a unitary construction (figs. 67-70; para. 0165).
Regarding claim 30, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorber panel is concave in shape in use (as configured to fit a crown of a helmet; figs. 8-9, 67-70; paras. 0153, 0165).
Regarding claim 31, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorber panel comprises of a plurality of discrete spaced apart shock absorbing elements (hollow frusto-conical projections 162; figs. 67-70; para. 0165) connected together by live hinge elements (connecting ribs 164; figs. 67, 70; para. 0165).
Regarding claim 32, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorbing elements are made of a flexible material (TPU, i.e., thermoplastic polyurethane; paras. 0005, 0165).
Regarding claim 33, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorbing elements are made of an elastically flexible material (TPU, i.e., thermoplastic polyurethane; paras. 0005, 0165).
Regarding claim 35, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the cup open top is sealed against the liner of the helmet when the shock absorbing element is pressed against the liner (the cup open top is capable of being sealed against a liner of the helmet when the shock absorbing element is pressed against the liner).
Regarding claim 36, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the cups comprise a mouth along the open top (figs. 68-70; para. 0165), and wherein the cups can compress in the mouth to base direction (figs. 68-70; para. 0165).
Regarding claim 37, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the cups comprise a mouth along the open top (figs. 68-70; para. 0165), and wherein the cups can compress in the mouth to base direction to act as a compressive spring (as formed of TPU, i.e., thermoplastic polyurethane; figs. 68-70; paras. 0005, 0165).
Regarding claim 38, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the cups comprise a mouth along the open top (figs. 68-70; para. 0165), wherein the cups can compress in the mouth to base direction to act as a compressive spring (as formed of TPU, i.e., thermoplastic polyurethane; figs. 68-70; paras. 0005, 0165), and wherein a resistance to compression is greater when the mouth is sealed to the liner of the helmet (inherent feature; due to air pressure).
Regarding claim 40, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the shock absorbing elements are in a matrix formation (figs. 68-70) and are spaced apart from each other (figs. 68-70) to allow airflow between the elements to help keep the wearer's head cool (figs. 68-70), and wherein the elements are configured to create a gap between the liner and the wearer's head to allow airflow therebetween between to help keep the wearer's head cool (capable of creating a gap when being integrated in a helmet).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ERB (US 2018/0343953 A1).
Regarding claim 39, ERB discloses the shock absorber panel of claim 28, and further discloses wherein the cups comprise a mouth along the open top (figs. 68-70; para. 0165).
ERB does not disclose wherein the cups are tri-spoke in cross sectional shape between the mouth and base. However, Applicant does not set forth any criticality for the cups having a tri-spoke shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the shape of the cups as disclosed by ERB, with wherein the cups are tri-spoke in cross sectional shape between a mouth of the open top opening and the base, in order to use another suitable shape configured to deform and absorb shock upon a compression force, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 and 14-27, as interpreted in the above 112 section, are free of prior art rejections. None of the prior art alone or in reasonable combination teaches wherein the liner is separate and independent of the shock absorber panel, wherein the shock absorbing element open tops are in contact with the liner, and wherein the shock absorbing elements are hollow and free from the liner being disposed therein.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights