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 2/5/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-12, 15-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/5/25.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 15-22 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “at least one of the plurality of suspension bands” in Claim 12 Line 11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the structure relates to “at least one suspension band” of Claim 12 Line 5. Especially based on the indentation of the limitation under “at least one suspension band” in Claim 12 Line 5, it is unclear why the term in Line 11 has been recited. The limitations related to the term are also indefinite as a result. For example: the limitation “the one or more inlay sections” in Claim 12 Line 19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially as the limitation is still indented under “at least one suspension band” of Claim 12 Line 5, but technically was established with “at least one of the plurality of suspension bands” in Claim 12 Line 11, it is unclear to what structure Line 19 belongs to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 12 will be interpreted as reciting “a first and second suspension band, wherein the first band comprises: [body of Claim 1]”, and similarly applied to the dependent claims, where dependent claims are only referring to the first band.
The term “at least one of the plurality of suspension bands” in Claim 12 Lines 14-15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 12 Line 11, and therefore its related limitations.
The term “wherein the harness is operably engaged” in Claim 12 Line 23 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. As best understood, the harness is not part of “at least one suspension band” of Claim 12 Line 5. However, based on the indentation, the term is included. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as though the indentation is incorrect.
The term “the suspension band” in Claim 15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which of the suspension bands the term is referring to, especially in light of the lack of definiteness in Claim 12.
The term “the one or more inlay sections” in Claim 15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which of the suspension bands the term belongs to, especially in light of the lack of definiteness in Claim 12.
The term “the one or more reinforcement sections” in Claim 15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which one or more of the suspension bands the term belongs to, especially in light of the lack of definiteness in Claim 12.
The term “at least one of the plurality of suspension bands” in Claim 16 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to at least the terms “at least one of the plurality of suspension bands” in Claim 12 Lines 11, 14, 15 and “at least one suspension band” of Claim 12 Line 11.
The term “loop structures” and “inlay structures” in Claims 17-20, 22 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite based on the indefiniteness in Claim 12.
The term “at least one of the plurality of suspension bands” in Claim 20 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 16.
The term “inlay structures” in Claim 21 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite based on the indefiniteness in Claim 12.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris.
Regarding Claim 1, Farris teaches a suspension band (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Figs. 2-3, 20; Col. 3 Lines 64-65 "article 10 can be configured as a strap, belt, bandage, or other similar object"; Col. 4 Lines 61-63 "article 10 can at least partially define a strap 11…wrapped around a body part"; Col. 5 Lines 14-15 "knitted component 32 can define at least a portion of article 10"; Col. 5 Lines 33-34 "knitted component 32 can generally include a base structure 34 and an adjustment member 36"; for Fig. 20 applying to Fig. 3-- Col. 6 Lines 11-15 "exemplary embodiments of base structure 34 and adjustment member 36...shown...in Figs. 19-22"; Farris teaches the band which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of suspension) comprising:
a plurality of knitted loop structures (see Fig. 20, such as 36); and
a plurality of knitted inlay structures (see Fig. 20 such as 34, which is 38; Col. 6 Lines 32-36 "strand 38"),
one or more inlay sections (56) each including the plurality of knitted inlay structures (see Fig. 20; Col. 5 Line 49 "smoothed region 56"); and
a reinforcement section (54) including the plurality of knitted loop structures and the plurality of knitted inlay structures (see Fig. 20; Col. 5 Line 48 “bunched region 54”),
the reinforcement section including a higher density of the plurality of knitted loop structures each of the one or more inlay sections (see Fig. 20, wherein reinforcement section 54 has a higher density of loops than each of inlay sections 56),
wherein each of the plurality of knitted inlay structures is inserted as a weft inlay stitch on, beneath, or within the plurality of knitted loop structures (see Fig. 20),
wherein the one or more inlay sections comprise a first inlay section and a second inlay section (see Fig. 20),
wherein the first inlay section is disposed on a first side of the reinforcement section and wherein the second inlay section is disposed on a second side of the reinforcement section (see Fig. 20; Col. 5 Lines 49-50 "smoothed region 56 is disposed on each side of bunched region 54").
Regarding Claim 5, Farris teaches the suspension band of claim 1, wherein the plurality of knitted loop structures and the plurality of knitted inlay structures comprise yarn (Col. 5 Lines 1-3 "article 10 can include…knitted component 32 from a plurality of yarns"; see Fig. 20; Col. 5 Lines 33-37 "knitted component 32 can generally include a base structure 34 and an adjustment member 36…each include…yarns…integrally knit together"; where 36 is the loops; 34 is the inlay).
Regarding Claim 11, Farris teaches the suspension band of claim 1, wherein the suspension band is configured to be integrated with a helmet, a fall protection harness, or a rope (Farris teaches the suspension band which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being integrated into the applications recited, especially in light of the recitations).
Regarding Claim 24, Farris teaches the suspension band of claim 1, wherein the plurality of knitted loop structures includes a plurality of loops and plurality of rows interlocked to provide a lateral and longitudinal stretch (see Fig. 20 for loops and rows interlocked; Farris teaches the loops and rows interlocked which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing lateral and longitudinal stretch),
wherein each of the plurality of knitted inlay structures is inserted as the weft inlay stitch orthogonally within each of the plurality of loops of the plurality of knitted loop structures (see Fig. 20 for orthogonal).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Lampe et al (USPN 6381760), herein Lampe, and Scharpenack et al (US Publication 2025/0089838), herein Scharpenack.
Regarding Claim 4, Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Farris does not explicitly teach wherein the suspension band comprises a length ranging from 335 mm to 390 mm,
wherein the one or more inlay sections comprise a width ranging from 20 mm to 24 mm,
and a thickness ranging from 1.3 mm to 1.7 mm,
and wherein the one or more reinforcement sections comprise a width ranging from 23 mm to 27 mm,
and a thickness ranging from 2 mm to 2.4 mm.
However, Farris does teach varying applications, including around a body part (Col. 3 Lines 64-65; Col. 4 Lines 61-63 "article 10 can at least partially define a strap 11…wrapped around a body part").
Lampe teaches wherein the suspension band comprises a length around a body part in a headwear (see Figs. 12-14; Col. 5 Lines 35-37 "in one embodiment of the suspension headguard, a fabric headband 21 made of mesh or other stretchable fabric is worn by the wearer as illustrated in Figs. 12-14").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ belt to be utilized as a headband as in Lampe as a known application for a stretchable fabric.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the length of the band and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), especially as it is known in the art that the circumference of a head (such as would be for a headband of Lampe) falls within the length range recited, see extrinsic evidence Twig and Tale NPL for 325 mm to 650 mm for a hat.
Scharpenack teaches wherein a suspension band has a thickness ranging from 1.3 mm to 1.7 mm (see Figs. 5A, 5C; [0175] "first 111 and second 112 flat bands are only 1-2mm thick"),
and a thickness ranging from 2 mm to 2.4 mm ([0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ band (and therefore one or more inlay/reinforcement sections) to be the band thickness recited by Scharpenack for improved positioning and desired rigidity ([0016], [0056]).
Scharpenack further teaches wherein a suspension band comprise a width ranging from 20 mm to 24 mm (see Figs. 5A,C; [0174] "flat band 111, 112 comprise a textile whose width 117, 118 is considerably greater than its thickness. In this case, the first flat band 111 has a first width 117 of approximately 2 cm…the second flat band 112 comprises a second width 118 of about 2 cm"; "[0016] "headband preferably has a width of ...at least 2 cm. This ensures a stable fit on the wearer's head", wherein at least 2cm is at least 20mm),
and a width ranging from 23 mm to 27 mm ([0174], especially [0016]).
Nevertheless, in the case that the prior art of Scharpenack lacks sufficient specificity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scharpenack’s range of width from at least 20mm into 20mm to 24 mm, and/or 23 mm to 27 mm, and thereby meet the ranges as claimed, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant specification [0009], [0020], and especially [0049]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ suspension band (and therefore one or more inlay/reinforcement sections) to be the band width of Scharpenack for a desired level of fit stability ([0016], [0056]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Kim et al (US Publication 2016/0076177), herein Kim, and Podhajny (US Publication 2016/0081417).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Farris does not explicitly teach wherein one or more knitted loop structures of the plurality of knitted loop structures comprise polyester DTY
and wherein one or more knitted inlay structures of the plurality of knitted inlay structures comprise liquid crystal polymer (LCP).
However, Farris does teach that the one or more knitted loop structures are polymeric (Col. 6 Lines 16-20 "adjustment member 36 can include one or more yarns….or other strands 48. Strands 48 can be made out of…polymeric material", wherein polyester DTY is polymeric)
and wherein one or more knitted inlay structures are polymeric (Col. 9 Lines 8-9 "strand 38 can be a polymeric monofilament strand"; wherein LCP is polymeric).
Kim teaches wherein one or more knitted loop structures of the plurality of knitted loop structures comprise polyester DTY ([0003] “invention generally relates to…knitting fabric”; [0104] "polyester used in the pattern forming portion has DTY 75 to 450 denier").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ knitted loop structure(s) to comprise polyester DTY as taught by Kim as a known material for desired strength ([0084]) in a knit textile.
Podhajny further teaches and wherein one or more knitted inlay structures of the plurality of knitted inlay structures comprise liquid crystal polymer (LCP) (see Fig. 7A; [0064] "as with the yarns forming a…knit element 402…an…inlaid tensile element 422... suitable materials for inlaid tensile elements may include…ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, and liquid crystal polymer"; see Fig. 22A; "knit element 1902...substantially similar to knit element 402...vertically inlaid tensile element 1922, which may be substantially similar to inlaid tensile element 422, and a horizontally inlaid tensile element 1942").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ knitted inlay structure(s) to be LCP as taught by Podhajny as a known material for inlaid tensile elements depending on desired stretchability ([0064]).
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Kim et al (US Publication 2016/0076177), herein Kim, and Malloy et al (US Publication 2011/0240827), herein Malloy.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Farris does not explicitly teach wherein a yarn size of one or more knitted loop structures of the plurality of knitted loop structures is 300D
and a yarn size of one or more knitted inlay structures is 1000D.
Kim teaches wherein a yarn size of one or more knitted loop structures of the plurality of knitted loop structures is 300D ([0104] "polyester used in the pattern forming portion has DTY 75 to 450 denier").
Nevertheless, in the case that the prior art of Kim lacks sufficient specificity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s range of knitted loop denier from 75 to 450D into 300D and thereby meet the range as claimed, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant specification [0012], [0023]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ knitted loop structure to be the denier recited for the desired support strength and/or aesthetic design ([0084]) in a knit textile.
Malloy teaches and a yarn size of one or more knitted inlay structures is 1000D ([0023] "The wale direction and weft inserted yarns 44, 46 can be provided of a variety of materials, and specifically for weft inserted yarns 46 it is preferably provided as a high tensile yarn, such as para-aramid (Kevlar, Twaron), liquid crystal polymers (Vectran), High Tenacity polymers (PET, Nylon) for example, and further, having a relatively large denier, such as about 1000, for example").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ knitted inlay structure to be of denier recited by Malloy depending on the desired textile strength ([0023]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Farris does not explicitly teach wherein a yarn tensile strength of one or more knitted loop structures of the plurality of knitted structures is 3.52 cN/dtex,
And a yarn tensile strength of one or more knitted inlay structures is 2.1 N/tex.
However, it is known in the art that the yarn tensile strength (otherwise known as tenacity) is met by the tensile strength (material) and yarn size (see extrinsic evidence Service Thread NPL).
Kim teaches wherein a yarn size of one or more knitted loop structures of polyester DTY of the plurality of knitted loop structures is 300D ([0104] "polyester used in the pattern forming portion has DTY 75 to 450 denier").
Nevertheless, in the case that the prior art of Kim lacks sufficient specificity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s range of knitted loop denier from 75 to 450D into 300D and thereby meet the range as claimed, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant specification [0012], [0023]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ knitted loop structure to be the polyester DTY (and denier) recited by Kim for the desired support strength and/or aesthetic design ([0084]) in a knit textile.
Malloy teaches and a yarn size of one or more knitted inlay structures of liquid crystal polymer (LCP) is 1000D ([0023] "The wale direction and weft inserted yarns 44, 46 can be provided of a variety of materials, and specifically for weft inserted yarns 46 it is preferably provided as a high tensile yarn, such as para-aramid (Kevlar, Twaron), liquid crystal polymers (Vectran), High Tenacity polymers (PET, Nylon) for example, and further, having a relatively large denier, such as about 1000, for example").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ knitted inlay structure to be of LCP (and denier) recited by Malloy depending on the desired textile strength ([0023]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Farris teaches wherein a yarn tensile strength of one or more knitted loop structures of the plurality of knitted structures is 3.52 cN/dtex,
and a yarn tensile strength of one or more knitted inlay structures is 2.1 N/tex
(especially in light of extrinsic evidence Service Thread NPL, modified Farris teaches the yarn size and material as the application which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having the yarn tensile strengths recited-- it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the yarn tensile strengths and get the recited ranges. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, in view of Tseng (US Publication 2019/0352811).
Regarding Claim 9, Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Farris does not explicitly teach a plurality of elongation structures,
wherein one or more elongation structures of the plurality of elongation structures are inserted as a weft inlay stitch on, beneath, or within the plurality of knitted loop structures and disposed adjacent to one or more of the plurality of inlay structures.
However, Farris teaches that the inlay structures can be polymeric (Col. 9 Lines 8-9 "strand 38 can be a polymeric…strand”).
Tseng teaches a plurality of elongation structures (see Figs. 1, 2 for elongation structures 40; [0023] "One of the two sandwiching yarns (40) is a yarn made of elastic fibers, and the other is a yarn made of hydrophobic fibers, plant fibers or other functional fibers. These sandwiching yarns can be used to adjust the elasticity of the fabric itself"; wherein it is known in the art that elastic fibers are polymeric; wherein the elongation structures would be the other yarn),
wherein one or more elongation structures of the plurality of elongation structures are inserted as a weft inlay stitch on, beneath, or within the plurality of knitted loop structures and disposed adjacent to one or more of the plurality of inlay structures (see Figs. 1, 2; [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ inlay to be an elastic adjacent elongation structures as taught of Tseng depending on the elasticity desired ([0023]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Farris does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more elongation structures of the plurality of elongation structures comprises elongation yarn.
Tseng further teaches that the elongation structures comprise yarn ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ elongation structure to be of yarn as taught by Tseng to provide the elasticity desired ([0023]).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Tseng further teaches wherein the one or more elongation structures of the plurality of elongation structures extend parallel with and adjacent to one or more of the plurality of inlay structures (see Figs. 1, 2, wherein at least portions of 40 are parallel and adjacent to one or more portions of the other 40).
SECOND REJECTION: as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 12, 15, 16, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris, in view of Scharpenack et al (US Publication 2025/0089838), herein Scharpenack, and Ruggiero (USPN 3040329).
Regarding Claim 12, Farris teaches a first suspension band (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Figs. 2-3, 20; Col. 3 Lines 64-65 "article 10 can be configured as a strap, belt, bandage, or other similar object"; Col. 4 Lines 61-63 "article 10 can at least partially define a strap 11…wrapped around a body part"; Col. 5 Lines 14-15 "knitted component 32 can define at least a portion of article 10"; Col. 5 Lines 33-34 "knitted component 32 can generally include a base structure 34 and an adjustment member 36"; for Fig. 20 applying to Fig. 3-- Col. 6 Lines 11-15 "exemplary embodiments of base structure 34 and adjustment member 36...shown...in Figs. 19-22"; Farris teaches the band which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of suspension) comprising:
a plurality of knitted loop structures (see Fig. 20, such as 36); and
a plurality of knitted inlay structures (see Fig. 20 such as 34, which is 38; Col. 6 Lines 32-36 "strand 38"),
one or more inlay sections (56) each including the plurality of knitted inlay structures (see Fig. 20; Col. 5 Line 49 "smoothed region 56"); and
a reinforcement section (54) including the plurality of knitted loop structures and the plurality of knitted inlay structures (see Fig. 20; Col. 5 Line 48 “bunched region 54”),
the reinforcement section including a higher density of the plurality of knitted loop structures each of the one or more inlay sections (see Fig. 20, wherein reinforcement section 54 has a higher density of loops than each of inlay sections 56),
wherein each of the plurality of knitted inlay structures is inserted as a weft inlay stitch on, beneath, or within the plurality of knitted loop structures (see Fig. 20),
wherein the one or more inlay sections comprise a first inlay section and a second inlay section (see Fig. 20),
wherein the first inlay section is disposed on a first side of the reinforcement section and wherein the second inlay section is disposed on a second side of the reinforcement section (see Fig. 20; Col. 5 Lines 49-50 "smoothed region 56 is disposed on each side of bunched region 54").
Farris does not explicitly teach a helmet system comprising:
a shell configured to protect the head of a wearer;
a harness disposed on, beneath, or within the shell; and
a second suspension band (and therefore a plurality of suspension bands),
wherein the harness is operably engaged with plurality of suspension bands.
However, Farris does teach varying applications, including around a body part (Col. 3 Lines 64-65; Col. 4 Lines 61-63 "article 10 can at least partially define a strap 11…wrapped around a body part").
Scharpenack teaches a helmet system (see Fig. 4a; [0107] "protective helmet 1 comprises…a dome 16") comprising:
a shell configured to protect the head of a wearer (see Fig. 4a; [0107] "protective helmet 1 comprises…a dome 16"; Scharpenack teaches the shell which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of protecting a wearer’s head);
a plurality of suspension bands around a body part ([0173] "inner system comprises a head net 17, which can be attached in various ways to the headband 11 and/or to a dome of a protective helmet"; [0174] "head net comprises a flat band 111, 112"; [0175] "flat bands 111, 112 comprise a textile").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ knit/textile band to be that within a helmet as taught by Scharpenack based on desired application, as known for a knit textile around a body part (see also extrinsic evidence Lampe et al USPN 6381760, Col. 5 Lines 35-37), which Farris desires as well (Col. 3 Lines 64-65; Col. 4 Lines 61-63).
Ruggiero further teaches a harness disposed on, beneath, or within the shell (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 3 Line 27 "adjustable tie cord 24"); and
wherein the harness is operably engaged with the plurality of suspension bands (Col. 3 Lines 25-27 "the headstraps are doubled back to provide loops 23, which are gathered together and secured by the adjustable tie cord 24").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ shell and suspension bands, as provided by Scharpenack, to be in the context of a harness as taught by Ruggiero in order to be able to adjust the positioning of the hat (Col. 3 Lines 27-31).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Scharpenack further teaches wherein the suspension band has a thickness ranging from 1.3 mm to 1.7 mm (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for the first band-- see Figs. 5A, 5C; [0175] "first 111 and second 112 flat bands are only 1-2mm thick"),
and a thickness ranging from 2 mm to 2.4 mm ([0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ band (and therefore one or more inlay/reinforcement sections as claimed) to be the band thickness recited by Scharpenack for improved positioning and desired rigidity ([0016], [0056]).
Scharpenack further teaches wherein the suspension band comprise a width ranging from 20 mm to 24 mm (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for the firs band: see Figs. 5A,C; [0174] "flat band 111, 112 comprise a textile whose width 117, 118 is considerably greater than its thickness. In this case, the first flat band 111 has a first width 117 of approximately 2 cm…the second flat band 112 comprises a second width 118 of about 2 cm"; "[0016] "headband preferably has a width of ...at least 2 cm. This ensures a stable fit on the wearer's head", wherein at least 2cm is at least 20mm),
and a width ranging from 23 mm to 27 mm ([0174], especially [0016]).
Nevertheless, in the case that the prior art of Scharpenack lacks sufficient specificity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scharpenack’s range of width from at least 20mm into 20mm to 24 mm, and/or 23 mm to 27 mm, and thereby meet the ranges as claimed, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant specification [0009], [0020], and especially [0049]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ suspension band (and therefore one or more inlay/reinforcement sections as claimed) to be the band width of Scharpenack for a desired level of fit stability ([0016], [0056]).
Ruggiero at least suggests wherein the suspension band comprises a length ranging from 335 mm to 390 mm (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for the first band: see extrinsic evidence Twig and Tale NPL, wherein it is known in the art that a hat head size circumference is 325 mm to 650 mm, which means there is a radius of 51.75mm to 103.5mm; see Ruggiero Figs. 1, 2; Col. 3 Lines 25-27; Ruggiero teaches that the band is around harness, which means it is less than a radius a head size, but also doubles back; as such, one can estimate that the length range is 50x2=100mm to 100x2=1000 mm, which encompasses the recited range).
Nevertheless, in the case that Ruggiero lacks sufficient specificity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruggiero’s estimated range of band length from 100-1000mm into 335mm to 390mm and thereby meet the range as claimed, as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see applicant specification [0009], [0020], and especially [0049]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ length as taught by Ruggiero depending on the desired head size to accommodate.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Farris further teaches wherein the plurality of knitted loop structures and the plurality of knitted inlay structures of at least one of the plurality of suspension bands comprise yarn (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—as directed to the first band: Col. 5 Lines 1-3 "article 10 can include…knitted component 32 from a plurality of yarns"; see Fig. 20; Col. 5 Lines 33-37 "knitted component 32 can generally include a base structure 34 and an adjustment member 36…each include…yarns…integrally knit together"; where 36 is the loops; 34 is the inlay).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Farris further teaches wherein the plurality of knitted loop structures includes a plurality of loops and plurality of rows interlocked to provide a lateral and longitudinal stretch (see Fig. 20 for loops and rows interlocked; Farris teaches the loops and rows interlocked which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing lateral and longitudinal stretch),
wherein each of the plurality of knitted inlay structures is inserted as the weft inlay stitch orthogonally within each of the plurality of loops of the plurality of knitted loop structures (see Fig. 20 for orthogonal).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris, in view of Scharpenack et al (US Publication 2025/0089838), herein Scharpenack, and Ruggiero (USPN 3040329), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Kim et al (US Publication 2016/0076177), herein Kim, and Podhajny (US Publication 2016/0081417).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
The body of Claim 17 is the same as the body of Claim 6. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 6 for the rejection of the body of Claim 17.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris, in view of Scharpenack et al (US Publication 2025/0089838), herein Scharpenack, and Ruggiero (USPN 3040329), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Kim et al (US Publication 2016/0076177), herein Kim, and Malloy et al (US Publication 2011/0240827), herein Malloy.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
The body of Claim 18 is the same as the body of Claim 7. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 7 for the rejection of the body of Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
The body of Claim 19 is the same as the body of Claim 8. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 8 for the rejection of the body of Claim 19.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al (USPN 11140933), herein Farris, in view of Scharpenack et al (US Publication 2025/0089838), herein Scharpenack, and Ruggiero (USPN 3040329), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Tseng (US Publication 2019/0352811).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Farris does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of suspension bands includes a plurality of elongation structures,
wherein one or more elongation structures of the plurality of elongation structures are inserted as a weft inlay stitch on, beneath, or within the plurality of knitted loop structures and disposed adjacent to one or more of the plurality of inlay structures.
However, Farris teaches that the inlay structures can be polymeric (Col. 9 Lines 8-9 "strand 38 can be a polymeric…strand”).
Tseng teaches wherein at least one of the textiles comprises a plurality of elongation structures (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for the first textile: see Figs. 1, 2 for elongation structures 40; [0023] "One of the two sandwiching yarns (40) is a yarn made of elastic fibers, and the other is a yarn made of hydrophobic fibers, plant fibers or other functional fibers. These sandwiching yarns can be used to adjust the elasticity of the fabric itself"; wherein it is known in the art that elastic fibers are polymeric; wherein the elongation structures would be the other yarn),
wherein one or more elongation structures of the plurality of elongation structures are inserted as a weft inlay stitch on, beneath, or within the plurality of knitted loop structures and disposed adjacent to one or more of the plurality of inlay structures (see Figs. 1, 2; [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farris’ inlay (such as of the first band) to be an elastic adjacent elongation structures as taught of Tseng depending on the elasticity desired ([0023]).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 20.
Tseng further teaches wherein the one or more elongation structures of the plurality of elongation structures extend parallel with and adjacent to one or more of the plurality of inlay structures (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—for the first textile: see Figs. 1, 2, wherein at least portions of 40 are parallel and adjacent to one or more portions of the other 40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-12, 15-24 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Hengli (NPL) directed to DTY polyester.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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, 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.
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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732