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 .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on February 20, 2026, claims 1, 4, 7-12, and 15-18 has been amended, and claims 2-3 has been canceled. Claims 21-22 are new. Accordingly, claims 1 and 4-22 are currently pending in this application with claims 8 and 12-14 being previously withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on February 20, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated October 20, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because at least Figs. 1-2, 7A, 16E, 16G, 18A-18F, 20A-20B, 21A, 25A-25B, 27A-27C, and 28A-28F, as originally filed are not line drawings but photographs (or renderings) that are of insufficient quality to be readable and reproducible for publication. Moreover, Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See: 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1). That said, in the instant case, line drawings can be used to illustrate the claimed invention, as evidenced by the line drawings of helmets and pads throughout the remainder of the drawings.
The drawings are further objected to because of the following informalities:
The solid black border around Figs. 19A-19C should be removed as appears to be a stylistic addition and not part of the structure of the invention.
Figs. 1, 2, 12C, 27B, 27C, 28A, 28B, 28C appear(s) to show an improper exploded view. The exploded view should include a bracket or line to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts (e.g., similar to Applicant’s amended Fig. 16G).
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 – Disclosure
The use of the terms “ARIAPRENETM foam” and “EVLONTM foam” are trade names or a marks used in commerce, have been noted throughout this application at least at [0075], [0088], [0097], [0098], and [0102]. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology, where appropriate; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. For example, the terms should include associated generic terminology similar to Applicant’s included description of “(open cell low density foam)” associated with the mark 4.0 CUSTULATM comfort foam.
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because at line 16, “that aligns” should read “configured to align”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3, “outer shell the inner shell” should read “outer shell, the inner shell”
At line 15, “that aligns” should read “configured to align”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 4-7, 9-11, and 15-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a predetermined orientation with respect to the support component” at lines 12-13. It is unclear in what way the orientation is considered “predetermined” and out the orientation would differ from an un-predetermined orientation. For example, is an un-predetermined orientation meant to be considered a random orientation? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “an orientation with respect to the support component”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 9 and 15 each recite similar limitations as described above at respective lines 16-17 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 4-7, 10-11, and 16-22 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 (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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 22, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 7,207,071 to Pierce (hereinafter, “Pierce”).
Regarding claim 1, Pierce teaches an impact mitigation fit pod assembly for a protective helmet having a support component shaped to receive at least part of a head of a wearer (See Pierce, Figs. 1-2 and 6; cheek pads (113, 132) capable of mitigating an impact and being positioned in a hypothetical helmet having a hypothetical support component such as helmet (100) having chin par bad (131); abstract; Examiner notes that the protective helmet and support component are recited as part of functional limitations and not necessarily required by the claim), the impact mitigation fit pod assembly comprising: a fit pod comprising a top layer, a bottom layer, and at least one foam layer disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer (See Pierce, Figs. 3 and 6; cheek pad (113, 132) includes top liner (133), a bottom layer (115, 134), and foam disposed therebetween; Col. 3, lines 61-64), the fit pod configured to resiliently compress against the support component to provide cushioning between the head and the support component (check pad (113, 132) is capable of resiliently compressing against a hypothetical support component to provide cushioning between a hypothetical wearer’s head and the hypothetical support component); and a connection mechanism comprising a plurality of detents extending away from the bottom layer of the fit pod, the plurality of detents configured to snap-fit engage the opening of the support component to removably couple the fit pod to the support component (See Pierce, Fig. 6; clip mounts (161, 162, 164), i.e., detents, extending away from bottom layer of cheek pad (113, 132) and capable of snap-fitting to engage and removably couple the cheek pad to some other hypothetical support component); the plurality of detents arranged into a shape providing an alignment feature, the alignment feature configured to align the fit pod in a predetermined orientation with respect to the support component (See Pierce, Fig. 6; each grouping of clip mounts (161, 162, 164) includes detents forming a shape; said shape is capable of corresponding to some matching hypothetical shape of a hypothetical support component, said matching shapes providing alignment of attachment in a particular orientation).
Regarding claim 7, Pierce (as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the fit pod further comprises a vent opening formed in at least one of the top layer and the bottom layer (See Pierce, Fig. 6; cheek pad (113, 132) includes holes (163, 137) in bottom layer (115, 134) for allowing air flow; Col. 3, lines 61-63 and Col. 4, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 9, Pierce teaches an impact mitigation arrangement for protective apparel (See Pierce, Figs. 1-2 and 6; helmet (100) having one or more cheek pads (113, 132) capable of mitigating an impact; abstract), the impact mitigation arrangement comprising: a support component shaped to receive at least part of a head of a wearer, the support component comprising an opening (See Pierce, Figs. 1-6; helmet (100) includes chin bar pad (131) capable of providing support and having holes (142, 143, 144)); a fit pod assembly that includes: a fit pod comprising a top layer, a bottom layer, and at least one foam layer disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer (See Pierce, Figs. 3 and 6; cheek pad (113, 132) includes top liner (133), a bottom layer (115, 134), and foam disposed therebetween; Col. 3, lines 61-64), the fit pod assembly configured to resiliently compress against the support component to provide cushioning between the head and the support component (check pad (113, 132) is capable of resiliently compressing against chin bar pad (131) to provide cushioning between a hypothetical wearer’s head and the chin bar pad (131)); and a connection mechanism comprising a plurality of detents extending away from the bottom layer of the fit pod, the plurality of detents configured to snap-fit engage the opening of the support component to removably couple the fit pod to the support component (See Pierce, Fig. 6; clip mounts (161, 162, 164), i.e., detents, extending away from bottom layer of cheek pad (113, 132) and capable of snap-fitting to engage and removably couple the cheek pad to chin bar pad (131) of helmet), the plurality of detents arranged into a shape providing an alignment feature that aligns the fit pod in a predetermined orientation with respect to the support component (See Pierce, Fig. 6; each grouping of clip mounts (161, 162, 164) includes detents forming a shape; said shape corresponding to matching shapes of holes (142, 143, 144) in chin bar pad (131), said matching shapes providing alignment of attachment in a particular orientation).
Regarding claim 11, Pierce (as applied to claim 9 above) further teaches wherein the fit pod further comprises a vent opening formed in at least one of the top layer and the bottom layer (See Pierce, Fig. 6; cheek pad (113, 132) includes holes (163, 137) in bottom layer (115, 134) for allowing air flow; Col. 3, lines 61-63 and Col. 4, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 15, Pierce teaches a protective helmet (See Pierce, Figs. 1-2 and 6; helmet (100) having one or more cheek pads (113, 132) capable of mitigating an impact; abstract) comprising: an outer shell; an inner shell disposed within the outer shell the inner shell shaped to receive a head of a wearer, the inner shell attached to the outer shell (See Pierce, Figs. 1-3; helmet (100) includes outer shell (130) and inner chin pad (131), i.e., inner shell attached to outer shell (130); inner shell is shaped to receive at least a portion of a head of a hypothetical wearer), a space defined between the inner shell and the outer shell, the inner shell comprising an opening into the space (See Pierce, Figs. 1-6; inner chin pad (131) includes holes (142, 143, 144) through outer shell (130)), each hole forming a space therein extending between inner and outer layers); and a fit pod assembly that includes: a fit pod comprising a top layer, a bottom layer, and at least one foam layer disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer (See Pierce, Figs. 3 and 6; cheek pad (113, 132) includes top liner (133), a bottom layer (115, 134), and foam disposed therebetween; Col. 3, lines 61-64), the fit pod configured to resiliently compress against the inner shell to provide cushioning between the head and the inner shell (check pad (113, 132) is capable of resiliently compressing against inner chin pad (131) to provide cushioning between a hypothetical wearer’s head and the chin bar pad (131)); and a connection mechanism comprising a plurality of detents extending away from the bottom layer of the fit pod, the plurality of detents configured to snap-fit engage the opening of the inner shell to removably couple the fit pod to the inner shell (See Pierce, Fig. 6; clip mounts (161, 162, 164), i.e., detents, extending away from bottom layer of cheek pad (113, 132) and capable of snap-fitting to engage and removably couple the cheek pad to openings in chin pad (131) of helmet), and the plurality of detents arranged into a shape providing an alignment feature that aligns the fit pod in a predetermined orientation with respect to the inner shell (See Pierce, Fig. 6; each grouping of clip mounts (161, 162, 164) includes detents forming a shape; said shape corresponding to matching shapes of holes (142, 143, 144) in inner chin pad (131), said matching shapes providing alignment of attachment in a particular orientation).
Regarding claim 17, Pierce (as applied to claim 15 above) further teaches wherein the fit pod further comprises a vent opening in at least one of the top layer and the bottom layer (See Pierce, Fig. 6; cheek pad (113, 132) includes holes (163, 137) in bottom layer (115, 134) for allowing air flow; Col. 3, lines 61-63 and Col. 4, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 22, Pierce (as applied to claim 15 above) further teaches wherein the plurality of detents include first detent and a second detent, a gap defined between the first detent and the second detent allowing snap-fit resilient flexure of the first detent relative to the second detent (See Pierce, Fig. 6; each grouping of clip mounts (161, 162, 164) includes first and second detents with a gap formed therebetween capable of allowing resilient flexure of detents within each clip structure).
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.
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 4, 10, 16, and 21, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce (as applied to claim 1 above with respect to claim 4, as applied to claim 9 above with respect to claim 10, and as applied to claim 15 above with respect to claims 16 and 21), and further in view of USPN 4,131,258 to Okuda et al. (hereinafter, “Okuda”).
Regarding claim 4, although Pierce teaches a plurality of arranged detents, Pierce (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the plurality of detents are arranged into an isosceles triangle shape.
That said, Okuda, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting surfaces to one another, is directed to a connector for plates wherein a protruding member is inserted to extend into a correspondingly shaped hole to connect plates to one another (See Okuda, abstract). More specifically, Okuda teaches wherein the plurality of detents are arranged into an isosceles triangle shape (inserted connector member and corresponding hole can define an isosceles triangle shape; See Okuda, Col. 5, lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have each grouping of clips, i.e., the detents, of Pierce to instead form an isosceles triangle as disclosed by Okuda, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known protruding connector arrangement shape for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one shape performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., releasable connection to another support component, and further since it has been held that modifying the shape of an element would be obvious absent evidence that the particular shape of the element of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, Applicant does not provide criticality for any particular shape of the plurality of detents and corresponding openings and instead provides a number of acceptable examples at least at [0072], [0077], [0091], [0093], and [0095] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed.
Regarding claim 10, although Pierce teaches a plurality of arranged detents, Pierce (as applied to claim 9 above) is silent to wherein the plurality of detents are arranged into an isosceles triangle shape.
That said, Okuda, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting surfaces to one another, is directed to a connector for plates wherein a protruding member is inserted to extend into a correspondingly shaped hole to connect plates to one another (See Okuda, abstract). More specifically, Okuda teaches wherein the plurality of detents are arranged into an isosceles triangle shape (inserted connector member and corresponding hole can define an isosceles triangle shape; See Okuda, Col. 5, lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have each grouping of clips, i.e., the detents, and corresponding openings of Pierce to instead form an isosceles triangle as disclosed by Okuda, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known protruding connector arrangement shape for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one shape performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., releasable connection to a support component, and further since it has been held that modifying the shape of an element would be obvious absent evidence that the particular shape of the element of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, Applicant does not provide criticality for any particular shape of the plurality of detents and corresponding openings and instead provides a number of acceptable examples at least at [0072], [0077], [0091], [0093], and [0095] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed.
Regarding claim 16, although Pierce teaches a plurality of arranged detents, Pierce (as applied to claim 15 above) is silent to wherein the plurality of detents are arranged into an isosceles triangle shape.
That said, Okuda, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting surfaces to one another, is directed to a connector for plates wherein a protruding member is inserted to extend into a correspondingly shaped hole to connect plates to one another (See Okuda, abstract). More specifically, Okuda teaches wherein the plurality of detents are arranged into an isosceles triangle shape (inserted connector member and corresponding hole can define an isosceles triangle shape; See Okuda, Col. 5, lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have each grouping of clips, i.e., the detents, and corresponding openings of Pierce to instead form an isosceles triangle as disclosed by Okuda, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known protruding connector arrangement shape for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one shape performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., releasable connection to a support component, and further since it has been held that modifying the shape of an element would be obvious absent evidence that the particular shape of the element of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, Applicant does not provide criticality for any particular shape of the plurality of detents and corresponding openings and instead provides a number of acceptable examples at least at [0072], [0077], [0091], [0093], and [0095] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed.
Regarding claim 21, although Pierce teaches a plurality of arranged detents, Pierce (as applied to claim 15 above) is silent to wherein the plurality of detents are arranged into a polygonal shape providing the alignment feature.
That said, Okuda, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem of connecting surfaces to one another, is directed to a connector for plates wherein a protruding member is inserted to extend into a correspondingly shaped hole to connect plates to one another (See Okuda, abstract). More specifically, Okuda teaches wherein the plurality of detents are arranged into a polygonal shape providing the alignment feature (inserted connector member and corresponding hole can define an isosceles triangle shape, i.e., forming a three-sided polygonal shape; See Okuda, Col. 5, lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have each grouping of clips, i.e., the detents, and corresponding openings of Pierce to instead form an isosceles triangle as disclosed by Okuda, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known protruding connector arrangement shape for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one shape performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., releasable connection to a support component, and further since it has been held that modifying the shape of an element would be obvious absent evidence that the particular shape of the element of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, Applicant does not provide criticality for any particular shape of the plurality of detents and corresponding openings and instead provides a number of acceptable examples at least at [0072], [0077], [0091], [0093], and [0095] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed.
Claims 5-6, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0135414 to Ide et al. (hereinafter, “Ide”).
Regarding claim 5, although Pierce teaches the presence of foam as discussed above, Pierce (as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the at least one foam layer comprises a layer of a first foam material overlying a layer of a second foam material.
However, Ide, in a related helmet padding art, is directed to a helmet having an internal padding assembly with multiple layers of foam padding (See Ide, Figs. 8-11). More specifically, Ide teaches wherein the at least one foam layer comprises a layer of a first foam material overlying a layer of a second foam material (See Ide, Fig. 9; pad (150) is formed from a first comfort foam layer (177) overlying a second force attenuating foam layer (176); [0059]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the foam layer of Pierce to instead have the dual layer construction disclosed by Ide for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing a soft, more comfortable layer of foam closer to a wearer while retaining force attenuating properties with a second layer (See Ide, [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified impact mitigation fit pod assembly of Pierce (i.e., Pierce in view of Ide, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the first foam material comprises a comfort foam and the second foam material comprises an impact foam (See Ide, Fig. 9; pad (150) is formed from a first comfort foam layer (177) overlying a second force attenuating foam layer (176); [0059]).
Claims 18 and 19, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2020/0163401 to Lee (hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 18, Pierce (as applied to claim 15 above) is silent to wherein: the connection mechanism comprises a base coupled to or integrated with the plurality of detents; the base is disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer of the fit pod; and the plurality of detents protrude from the bottom layer of the fit pod.
However, Lee, in a related helmet padding art, is directed to a helmet having removable pads attachable to an inside of the helmet body (See Lee, Figs. 1-4D; abstract). More specifically, Lee teaches wherein: the connection mechanism comprises a base coupled to or integrated with the plurality of detents; the base is disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer of the fit pod; and the plurality of detents protrude from the bottom layer of the fit pod (See Lee, Fig. 4A; fastening member (500) includes base extension (530, 540) coupled to detents (900); base extension (530, 540) is positionable between a bottom cover layer (800) and a top layer of pad (200); detents (900) protrude out from bottom cover layer (800)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the detents of Pierce as a separate piece that couples inside and underneath the bottom layer of the cheek pad of Pierce as disclosed by Lee for a variety of reasons including for example, but limited to, allowing for easier replacement of detents of Pierce in case of the detents snapping off or otherwise breaking, and further since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Regarding claim 19, Pierce (as applied to claim 15 above) is silent to wherein the connection mechanism comprises: a first portion disposed between the top layer of the fit pod and the bottom layer of the fit pod; and a second portion protruding from the bottom layer of the fit pod, the second portion comprising the plurality of detents.
However, Lee, in a related helmet padding art, is directed to a helmet having removable pads attachable to an inside of the helmet body (See Lee, Figs. 1-4D; abstract). More specifically, Lee teaches wherein the connection mechanism comprises: a first portion disposed between the top layer of the fit pod and the bottom layer of the fit pod; and a second portion protruding from the bottom layer of the fit pod, the second portion comprising the plurality of detents (See Lee, Fig. 4A; fastening member (500) includes base extension portion (530, 540) coupled to detents portion (900); base extension portion (530, 540) is disposed between a bottom cover layer (800) and a top layer of pad (200); detents portion (900) protrudes out from bottom cover layer (800); Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the detents of Pierce as a separate piece that couples inside and underneath the bottom layer of the cheek pad of Pierce as disclosed by Lee for a variety of reasons including for example, but limited to, allowing for easier replacement of detents of Pierce in case of the detents snapping off or otherwise breaking, and further since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Claim 20, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce, as applied to claim 15 above, in view of USPN 6,658,671 to Holst et al. (hereinafter, “Holst”).
Regarding claim 20, Pierce (as applied to claim 15 above) is silent to an impact mitigation layer, at least a portion of which is disposed between the outer shell and the inner shell.
However, Holst, in a related protective helmet art, is directed to a multi-layer helmet having an interior sliding layer (See Holst, Figs. 1-3C; abstract). More specifically, Holst teaches an impact mitigation layer, at least a portion of which is disposed between the outer shell and the inner shell (See Holst, Figs. 1-3C; sliding layer (4) capable of mitigating an impact to at least some extent is positioned between outer shell (2) and inner shell (3)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the intermediate sliding layer of Holst between the inner and outer shell layers of Pierce in order to better absorb impact from an oblique impact against the helmet (See Holst, abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s apparent argument that Pierces fails to disclose detents arranged into a shape providing an alignment feature that aligns the fit pod in a predetermined orientation, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, the cheek pad of Pierce includes a plurality of clip mounts (161, 162, 164) which are capable of coupling with correspondingly positioned and shaped holes, said coupling aligning the cheek pad in a particular orientation. See rejection under 112(b) above for additional discussion with respect to the term “a predetermined orientation”.
In response to Applicant’s apparent argument that Pierce fails to disclose a connection mechanism with detents configured to snap-fit engage an opening in the support component and that Pierce is silent to the clip mounts (161, 162, 164) of Pierce being configured to snap-fit engage an opening in a support component, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, the clip mounts of Pierce each include detents capable of snap-fitting to engage in correspondingly positioned and shaped holes (142, 143, 144) in layer (131), i.e., the support component. Examiner notes that the clips of Pierce are capable of forming a snap-fit engagement absent additional language or remarks by Applicant further differentiating, structurally, the clips of Pierce and the snap-fit engagement of Applicant’s invention.
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 MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, CLINTON T 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights