DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 6/3/26 in which claims 1, 4-12, 15-24 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/3/26 has been entered.
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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”),
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 embodiment Figs. 2, 3, 20 at least suggests the reinforcement section including a higher quantity of the plurality of knitted loop structures knit to each of the plurality of knitted inlay structures than each of the one or more inlay sections (see Fig. 20, wherein reinforcement section 54 could be capable of having a higher quantity of loops than each of inlay sections 56 depending on the lengths of the reinforcement section/inlay sections).
Nevertheless, Farris embodiment Fig. 5 at least suggests the reinforcement section including a higher quantity of the plurality of knitted loop structures knit to each of the plurality of knitted inlay structures than each of the one or more inlay sections (Col. 5 Lines 57-60 "in Fig. 5, adjustment member 36 can be bunched and amassed to such a large degree that knitted component 32 exhibits a large degree of bunching...about its length", wherein Fig. 5 still is in the context of loop structures knit to inlay structures; Fig. 20 already indicated that a higher quantity is capable inasmuch as the lengths of the reinforcement section is greater than the inlay sections, and Fig. 5 teaches such a comparison in length).
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 such that the reinforcement section is of a higher quantity of knitted loop structures knit to inlay structures than each of the inlay sections depending on the amount of cushioning desired (Col. 5 Line 64-Col. 6 Line 5).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Farris further teaches 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, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Farris further teaches wherein the suspension band is configured to be operably engaged with a helmet (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 operably engaged with a helmet recited, especially in light of the recitations; see rejection of Claim 12 as extrinsic evidence).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Farris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
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).
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, further 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, further 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, 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 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, further 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: 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),
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”),
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 embodiment Figs. 2, 3, 20 at least suggests the reinforcement section including a higher quantity of the plurality of knitted loop structures knit to each of the plurality of knitted inlay structures than each of the one or more inlay sections (see Fig. 20, wherein reinforcement section 54 could be capable of having a higher quantity of loops than each of inlay sections 56 depending on the lengths of the reinforcement section/inlay sections).
Nevertheless, Farris embodiment Fig. 5 at least suggests the reinforcement section including a higher quantity of the plurality of knitted loop structures knit to each of the plurality of knitted inlay structures than each of the one or more inlay sections (Col. 5 Lines 57-60 "in Fig. 5, adjustment member 36 can be bunched and amassed to such a large degree that knitted component 32 exhibits a large degree of bunching...about its length", wherein Fig. 5 still is in the context of loop structures knit to inlay structures; Fig. 20 already indicated that a higher quantity is capable inasmuch as the lengths of the reinforcement section is greater than the inlay sections, and Fig. 5 teaches such a comparison in length).
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 such that the reinforcement section is of a higher quantity of knitted loop structures knit to inlay structures than each of the inlay sections depending on the amount of cushioning desired (Col. 5 Line 64-Col. 6 Line 5).
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 at least one suspension band of the plurality of suspension bands has a thickness ranging from 1.3 mm to 1.7 mm (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’ at least one 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 at least one suspension band of the plurality of suspension bands 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’ at least one 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 at least one suspension band of the plurality of suspension bands comprises a length ranging from 335 mm to 390 mm (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’ at least one band’s 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 the at least one suspension band of the plurality of suspension bands comprise yarn (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).
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.
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.
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 the at least one suspension band 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 textile of the plurality of textiles includes 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 of the at least one 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 knitted 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12, 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. However, for clarification—
Pertaining to remarks beginning on page 10 pertaining to Claim 11, that the amendments overcome Farris as Farris does not mention a helmet—examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments do not require a helmet structure because the helmet is recited functionally, and therefore Farris does not require the disclosure of a helmet, merely the capability to be in the context of helmet, for which there is no teaching away in Farris. To argue otherwise (that the helmet is positively claimed rather than functionally) will merit U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for the reasons originally outlined on page 3 of the office action 11/5/25—summarily: the preamble is only directed to the suspension band, not a system of a band and helmet, and therefore a helmet cannot be positively claimed in Claim 11.
Pertaining to similar remarks on page 11 that independent Claim 12 refers to a harness and therefore Claim 12 is allowable—examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated on page 17 of the office action 3/3/26, Ruggerio teaches the harness. No remarks have been provided as to why applicant believes the helmet system is not taught by modified Farris. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights