DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 20, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on August 20, 2026, claims 1, 4, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-22 have been amended. Claims 2-3 were previously canceled. Accordingly, claims 1 and 4-22 are currently pending in this application with claims 8 and 12-14 being previously withdrawn from further consideration.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 August 20, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated April 20, 2026, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.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:
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 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:
“a predetermined singular orientation” as recited in claim 1
“a single-orientation fit” as recited in claims 9 and 15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the alignment feature configured to orient the outer periphery of the fit pod in a predetermined singular orientation with respect to the support component” at lines 14-15. Although the application as originally filed discusses proper and improper alignment of the fit pod, the application as originally filed does not disclose limiting a proper alignment of the fit pod to only a singular orientation with respect to the support component. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new subject matter and should be removed from the claim. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to recite language similar to that of claims 9 and 15 which instead relate an orientation of a detent body to an opening of the support component for which there appears to be support (e.g., an isosceles triangle shape).
Claims 4-8 are similarly 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 (claims 1 and 7, 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 having an outer periphery, the fit pod comprising a top layer, a bottom layer, and at least one foam layer disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer and spanning within the outer periphery of the fit pod (See Pierce, Figs. 3 and 6; cheek pad (113, 132) has outer periphery and includes top liner (133), a bottom layer (115, 134), and foam disposed therebetween and spanning the outer periphery; 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 detent body that is spaced apart from the outer periphery, the detent body extending away from the bottom layer of the fit pod, the detent body including at least one detent 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; at least one of clip mounts (161, 162, 164), i.e., detents, spaced from outer periphery and extending away from bottom layer of cheek pad (113, 132) and further capable of snap-fitting to engage and removably couple the cheek pad to some other hypothetical support component); and the detent body having a shape providing an alignment feature, the alignment feature configured to orient the outer periphery of the fit pod in a predetermined singular 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 single, 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), at least one of said holes forming the opening); a fit pod assembly that includes: a fit pod having an outer periphery, the fit pod comprising a top layer, a bottom layer, and at least one foam layer disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer and spanning within the outer periphery of the fit pod (See Pierce, Figs. 3 and 6; cheek pad (113, 132) has outer periphery and includes top liner (133), a bottom layer (115, 134), and foam disposed therebetween and spanning the outer periphery; 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 detent body that is spaced apart from the outer periphery, the detent body extending away from the bottom layer of the fit pod, the detent body including at least one detent 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; at least one of clip mounts (161, 162, 164), i.e., detents, spaced from outer periphery and extending away from bottom layer of cheek pad (113, 132) and further capable of snap-fitting to engage and removably couple the cheek pad to chin bar pad (131) of helmet), the detent body having a shape having a single-orientation fit in the opening of 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 single, 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, at least one of said holes forming the opening); and a fit pod assembly that includes: a fit pod having an outer periphery, the fit pod comprising a top layer, a bottom layer, and at least one foam layer disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer and spanning within the outer periphery of the fit pod (See Pierce, Figs. 3 and 6; cheek pad (113, 132) has outer periphery and includes top liner (133), a bottom layer (115, 134), and foam disposed therebetween and spanning the outer periphery; 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 detent body that is spaced apart from the outer periphery, the detent body extending away from the bottom layer of the fit pod, the detent body including at least one detent 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; at least one of clip mounts (161, 162, 164), i.e., detents, spaced from outer periphery and extending away from bottom layer of cheek pad (113, 132) and further capable of snap-fitting to engage and removably couple the cheek pad to openings in chin pad (131) of helmet), and the detent body having a shape with a single-orientation fit in the opening of the inner shell to orient the outer periphery of the fit pod according to the single-orientation fit (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 single, 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 at least one detent comprises a 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 (claim 4, 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 at least one detent comprises a plurality of detent 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 at least one detent comprises a 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 at least one detent comprises a 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 at least one detent comprises a 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 at least one detent comprises a 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 at least one detent comprises a 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 at least one detent comprises a plurality of detents arranged into a polygonal 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 at least one detent comprises a plurality of detents arranged into a polygonal shape (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 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 detent body protrudes 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 detent body protrudes 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 at least one detent.
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 at least one detent (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 is 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 August 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that black and white photographs are acceptable in some circumstances, Examiner notes that MPEP 608.02 and 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1) each discuss that 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. 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. Applicant has not provided sufficient reasoning for why some helmet and/or pad structures were capable of being shown in line drawings while others were not. Furthermore, those photographs are of insufficient quality and have reduced clarity as to the relationship of various parts due to the shading and lighting present in the reproduced photographs.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the clip mounts (161, 162, 164) of Pierce are disposed proximate the outer periphery of the cheek pad (113, 132) instead of being spaced apart from the outer periphery, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in at least Fig. 6 of Pierce, although the clip mounts (161, 162, 164) of Pierce may be considered to be positioned proximate to an outer periphery of the cheek pad, they are not positioned on the outer peripheral edge itself, and are therefore considered spaced, at least some amount, from the outer periphery of the cheek pad.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the plurality of clip mounts (161, 162, 164) of Pierce are spaced apart from each other instead of comprising a detent body, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. In the current grounds of rejection above, at least one of the clip mounts (161, 162, 164) are mapped to the detent body. That said, the use of the term “detent body” could be interpreted broadly to include one or more of the clip mounts. Examiner notes that the term "body" is very broad and merely means "a number of persons, concepts, or things regarded as a group". (Defn. No. 4 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant appears to rely (i.e., a relative spacing, or lack thereof, between detents of a detent body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the clip mounts of Pierce cannot provide an alignment feature as recited in the pending claims, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the clip mounts of Pierce are capable of providing a singular orientation of the cheek pad when the clip mounts are attached in correspondingly positioned openings resulting in a particular, predetermined orientation of the cheek pad.
Conclusion
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