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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the polygonal channels” in line 2 and “the channel” in line 4 of the claim. The examiner believes it to be the polygonal cells as introduced in the parent claim 1 and not the channels. However, if the applicant referring the polygonal channels as recited in the clam to be different than the polygonal cells, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US 2018/0027914 A1) in view of Lee (US 2019/0110545 A1) and Laperriere et al. (US 2020/0187582 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Cook discloses an impact protection structure (figs. 3-7), comprising: a sheet (7 in fig. 6) formed of a plurality of hexagonal cells adjacent one another to accommodate a generally domed shape in the sheet with a reduction in a distortion of a regular shape of the plurality of hexagonal cells. Cook further discloses that the cell may include other shapes (e.g. triangles and squares) (note [0093]-[0097]). Cook fails to disclose the plurality of polygonal cells including a plurality of hexagonal cells, the plurality of polygonal cells including at least one pentagonal cell and at least one heptagonal cell as recited in the claim. However, Lee discloses a similar impact protection structure (figs. 1-7B) comprising: a plurality of layers including a second layers a plurality of hexagons and pentagons cells (note figs. 2B-2C; [0026]-[0028]) and Laperriere et al. discloses an impact protection structure comprising a plurality cells may have pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, square, rectangular, or polygonal shape (note [0139]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the sheet of Cook to include any desired shape of cells including a plurality of hexagons and pentagons cells as taught by Lee and Laperriere et al. in order to diffuse the transmitted shock waves over a range of directions without a single focused direction across the protective headgear toward an axial center of the protective headgear.
Re-claim 2, the modified structure of Cook discloses the sheet has a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and the cells each open through the first surface at a first end of the channel and open through the second surface at a second end of the channel (note fig. 5 of Cook and fig. 3 of Lee).
Re-claim 3, the modified structure of Cook discloses each cell has a common number of sides at each of the first and second ends of the cell (note each cell of Cook in fig. 5).
Re-claim 4, the modified structure of Cook discloses the sheet includes at least one pentagon-heptagon cell set comprising a pentagonal cell adjacent a heptagonal cell (note [0139] of Laperriere et al. teaching heptagon cell and Lee teaches two different shape of cells adjacent to each other in fig. 2B). The examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include any desired number of combination of cells of different shape or with different arrangement with teaching of Lee and Laperriere et al. diffuse the transmitted shock waves over a range of directions across the protective headgear as desired.
Re-claim 5, the modified structure of Cook discloses the plurality of polygonal cells include a plurality of pentagonal cells and a plurality of heptagonal cells, and each of the at least one pentagon-heptagon cell set comprises one or more pentagonal cell and one or more heptagonal cell (note Lee teaches the plurality of pentagon-hexagonal cells in fig. 2B and Laperriere et al. teaches heptagonal cell in [0139]). The examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include any desired number of combination of cells of different shape or with different arrangement with teaching of Lee and Laperriere et al. will diffuse the transmitted shock waves over a range of directions across the protective headgear as desired.
Re-claim 6, the modified structure of Cook discloses the sheet includes a plurality of pentagon-heptagon cell sets separated from one another by hexagonal cells (note Lee teaches the plurality of pentagon-hexagonal cells in fig. 2B and Laperriere et al. teaches heptagonal cell in [0139]). The examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include any desired number of combination of cells of different shape or with different arrangement with teaching of Lee and Laperriere et al. will diffuse the transmitted shock waves over a range of directions across the protective headgear as desired.
Re-claim 7, discloses the pentagonal cells and the heptagonal cells occur in the sheet only in the pentagon-heptagon cell sets (note Lee teaches the plurality of pentagon-hexagonal cells in fig. 2B and Laperriere et al. teaches heptagonal cell in [0139]). The examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include any desired number of combination of cells of different shape or with different arrangement with teaching of Lee and Laperriere et al. will diffuse any transmitted shock waves over a range of directions across the protective headgear as desired.
Re-claim 8, the modified structure of Cook discloses the sheet is an elastomeric sheet (note [0062] of Cook).
Re-claim 9, the modified structure of Cook discloses the structure is a single generally domed shape (note fig. 6 of Cook).
Re-claim 10, the modified structure of Cook discloses use of the impact protection structure of claim 9 in a helmet (note fig. 7 of Cook).
Re-claim 11, the modified structure of Cook discloses the plurality of polygonal cells consists of central cells each surrounded by other polygonal cells and edge cells bordering a free edge of the sheet, and the central cells each comprise at least five sides (note each polygonal cell with at least five sides in fig. 2B of Lee).
Re-claim 12, the modified structure of Cook discloses all clamed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose at least 75% of the central cells are hexagonal cells. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide at least 75% of the central cells are hexagonal cells, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to diffuse the transmitted shock waves over a range of directions across the protective headgear as desired.
Re-claim 14, the modified structure of Cook discloses each sidewall segment has a width between adjacent cells, and the width is generally constant between the first and second surfaces (note each sidewall of adjacent cells in fig. 4 of Cook).
Re-claim 15, the modified structure of Cook discloses each sidewall segment has a width between adjacent cells, and the widths of the plurality of generally planar sidewall segments are all generally equal to a common width (note each sidewall of adjacent cells in fig. 4 of Cook).
Re-claim 16, the modified structure of Cook discloses each sidewall segment has a width between adjacent cells and the width of each sidewall segment is generally constant along the height of the sidewall segment (note figs. 3-5 of Cook).
Re-claim 17, the modified structure of Cook discloses all clamed limitations as set forth above including each sidewall segment has a length between the ends (note fig. 5 of Cook) thereof but fails to disclose the lengths of the plurality of generally planar sidewall segments are all within a variation of 25% of a predetermined length as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the plurality of generally planar sidewall segments are all within a variation of 25% of a predetermined length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to diffuse the transmitted shock waves over a range of directions across the protective headgear as desired.
Re-claim 18, the modified structure of Cook discloses all clamed limitations as set forth above including the plurality of polygonal cells each have a transverse area at the first surface (note fig. 5 of Cook) but fails to disclose the area to be within a variation of 25% of a predetermined area as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the area to be within a variation of 25% of a predetermined area, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art in order to diffuse the transmitted shock waves over a range of directions across the protective headgear as desired.
Re-claim 19, the modified structure of Cook discloses the plurality of generally planar sidewall segments are formed of an elastomeric material (note [0062] of Cook).
Re-claim 20, the modified structure of Cook discloses the impact protection structure is a generally domed shape for use in forming a protective layer in a helmet (note figs. 6-7 of Cook).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT SICONOLFI can be reached at 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights