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
Applicants’ amendment filed on 4/30/2026 has been received; Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 14, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (USPN 6,006,860) in view of Cox (US 2019/0226128).
Regarding Claim 1, Bell discloses a strap (30A & 30B) with a failure indicator (Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3), comprising: a main body structure (Figures 2-4); and one or more second yarns (44) integrated straight into the main body structure in a length direction of the main body structure along the entire length of the main body structure (Figures 1-4) and at least partially fixed to the main body structure (Figures 1-4), wherein the main body structure and the second yarn are selected such that the main body structure and the second yarn are elongated and do not break under a predetermined amount of a tensile force (Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3), and after the tensile force is released, the main body structure retracts, such that at least one second yarn at least partially protrudes from a plane of the main body structure to form a failure indicating loop (Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3). Bell does not specifically disclose a main body structure formed by knitting. However, Cox discloses a knitted component having second yarns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a knit construction for the strap of Bell, as taught by Cox, in order to provide comfort and breathability. Bell does not specifically disclose the second yarn are elongated and do not break under a predetermined amount of a tensile force therefore forming a failure indicating loop. However, Bell discloses second yarns are frayed, stretched and ruptured. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second yarns of Bell have various different type of failure indicating structures such that a loop is formed and not broken wherein the second yarn protrudes from said surface of the main body.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose under the predetermined amount of the tensile force, an elongated length of the main body structure is greater than an elongated length of the second yarn , such that the second yarn detaches from the fixation to the main body structure and can slide in the main body structure (Bell, Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3); when the tensile force is released, the main body structure retracts, and the second yarn does not retract due to occurred plastic deformation, such that the length of the main body structure is smaller than the length of at least one second yarn that has slid, thereby the at least one second yarn at least partially protruding from the plane of the main body structure (Bell, Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose under the predetermined amount of the tensile force, the second yarn deforms synchronously with the main body structure (Bell, Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3), and after the tensile force is released, the length of the main body structure after retraction is smaller than the length of at least one second yarn that has deformed plastically, such that the at least one second yarn at least partially protrudes from the plane of the main body structure (Bell, Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose material of a first yarn forming the main body structure may be any of the following: polyester fiber, polyester low-elastic yarn, polyester high-elastic yarn, spandex core-spun material, polyester, polyamide, natural fiber, viscose fiber, acrylic fiber and acetate fiber (Bell, Col. 3, line 60-Col. 4, line 8), and the first yarn is of a different color from the second yarn (Col. 4, line 65- Col. 5, line 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Bell discloses the main body structure has a higher tensile load than the second yarns (Col. 4, lines 33-58). Bell does not specifically disclose the second yarn has a tensile strength of at least 2.0 N/Tex, and the elongation at break in the range of 2~5%; the main body structure has the maximum tensile force of not less than 800 N, and the elongation in the range of 15%~35%. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of tensile strength and elongation break for the second yarn and main body in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of providing shock load indicating strands, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the tensile strength and elongation break involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Bell discloses the second yarn can be made of any suitable strong material (Bell, Col. 4, lines 33-58). The combination of Bell and Cox do not specifically disclose material of the second yarn may be medium-density polyethylene, high-density polyethylene yarn, or polyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the second yarn as claimed, since it is well within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using medium-density polyethylene, high-density polyethylene yarn, or polyethylene would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose the strap has a compensating portion (Bell, Figures 1-4, the end of a strap), which can compensate for the difference in elongated lengths between the main body structure and the second yarn under the predetermined amount of the tensile force (Bell, Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3); wherein the compensating portion is forming a bending portion at an end of the main body structure (Bell, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Bell and disclose the main body structure includes a first yarn knit into a plurality of intermeshing loops (as modified, Cox, Figures 3A & 3B) and the second yarn is received through the plurality of intermeshing loops (as modified, Cox, Figures 3A & 3B).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose the one or more second yarns are formed by a single yarn which is in a serpentine arrangement and turns at the ends of the main body structure (Bell, Figures 2 & 3, Col. 4, lines 22-32).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose a safety device comprising a component formed by the strap with a failure indicator according to claim 1, to facilitate determining whether the safety device has been damaged (Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Bell discloses a method for manufacturing a strap (30A & 30B) with a failure indicator (Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3), comprising: a) providing a first yarn (36); b) providing a second yarn (44); c) using the first yarn to form a main body structure (Figure 1-4), and integrating the second yarn straight into the main body structure and extending the entire length of the main body structure (Figure 2-4), and d) at least partially fixing the second yarn to the main body structure (Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3), wherein the main body structure and the second yarn are selected such that the main body structure and the second yarn are elongated and do not break under a predetermined amount of a tensile force (Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3), and after the tensile force is released, the main body structure retracts, such that at least one second yarn can at least partially protrude from a plane of the main body structure to form a failure indicating loop (Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3). Bell does not specifically disclose a main body structure formed by knitting. However, Cox discloses a knitted component having second yarns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a knit construction for the strap of Bell, as taught by Cox, in order to provide comfort and breathability. Bell does not specifically disclose the second yarn are elongated and do not break under a predetermined amount of a tensile force therefore forming a failure indicating loop. However, Bell discloses second yarns are frayed, stretched and ruptured. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second yarns of Bell have various different type of failure indicating structures such that a loop is formed and not broken wherein the second yarn protrudes from said surface of the main body.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose knitting the first yarn in a manner of plain weave, double-sided weave or jacquard weave to form the main body structure (Cox, Para. 21-26).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose the elongated length of the main body structure under the predetermined amount of the tensile force is substantially caused by the deformation of the orientation of the knitted loops and the straightening of arcs of the loops (Bell, Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3 & Cox, Para. 21-26) .
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Bell and Cox disclose wherein under the predetermined amount of the tensile force, the second yarn deforms synchronously with the main body structure (Bell, Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3), and after the tensile force is released, the length of the main body structure after retraction is smaller than the length of at least one second yarn that has deformed plastically, such that the at least one second yarn at least partially protrudes from the plane of the main body structure (Bell, Col. 4, line 9-Col. 5, line 3).
Claims 10 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (USPN 6,006,860) in view of Cox (US 2019/0226128) in further view of Dua (US 2023/0038383).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Bell and Cox do not specifically disclose the fixation of the second yarn to the main body structure is realized by winding a thermal fuse at least partially around the second yarn with a twist of 6~10 turns/cm or by using an adhesive. However, Dua discloses the use of fusible yarns having a twist (Para. 5, 48, 52 & 53) which can impart various performance properties (Para. 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a second yarn, as taught by Dua, in order to impart various performance properties on the strap. The combination of Bell, Cox or Dua do not specially disclose a twist of 6~10 turns/cm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of twist for the second yarn in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of providing performance properties, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the twist involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore the combination of Bell, Cox and Dua, as modified, disclose the fixation of the second yarn to the main body structure is realized by winding a thermal fuse at least partially around the second yarn with a twist of 6~10 turns/cm or by using an adhesive.
Regarding Claims 15-17, the combination of Bell and Cox do not specifically disclose winding a thermal fuse around the second yarn along at least part of the length of the second yarn and, in step d, melting the thermal fuse by heating the strap to at least partially fix the second yarn to the main body structure, wherein a melting point of the thermal fuse is 80~130ºC and its twist is 6~10 turns/cm and wherein the fixation of the second yarn to the main body structure is realized by winding a thermal fuse at least partially around the second yarn with a twist of 6~10 turns/cm or by using an adhesive. However, Dua discloses the use of fusible yarns wrapped around a yarn having a twist (Para. 5, 48, 52 & 53) which can melt when heated to a main body (Para. 5, 48, 52 & 53) and can impart various performance properties (Para. 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a second yarn, as taught by Dua, in order to impart various performance properties on the strap. The combination of Bell, Cox or Dua do not specially disclose a melting point of the thermal fuse is 80~130ºC or a twist of 6~10 turns/cm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of melting points and twist for the second yarn in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of providing performance properties, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the twist involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore the combination of Bell, Cox and Dua, as modified, disclose the fixation of the second yarn to the main body structure is realized by winding a thermal fuse at least partially around the second yarn with a twist of 6~10 turns/cm or by using an adhesive
Claims 12 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (USPN 6,006,860) in view of Cox (US 2019/0226128) in further view of Ruggiero (USPN 3,040,329).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Bell and Cox do not specifically disclose a safety helmet. However, Ruggiero discloses a safety helmet (Figures 1 & 2), comprising a helmet body (2) and a suspension system (Figure 2) attached to the inside of the helmet body, the suspension system comprising a plurality of straps (16) connected with a cushion pad (12) to form a structure covering a head (Figures 1 & 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a helmet with the strap of Bell-Cox in order to provide a shock load indicator for a helmet for the purpose of safely using a fully functioning helmet during each use. Therefore, as modified, the combination of Bell, Cox and Ruggiero disclose at least one of the plurality of straps is formed by the strap according to claim 1, such that the suspension system can not only act as a buffer when subjected to a tensile force, but also can indicate whether the suspension system has experienced impact.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Bell and Cox do not specifically disclose folding each end of the strap and fixing it in the middle with a suture to form a first bending portion and a compensating portion. However, Dua discloses folding each end of the strap and fixing it in the middle with a suture to form a first bending portion and a compensating portion (27, Figure 3, & Col. 3, lines 52-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include folding the strap and fixing it, as taught by Dua, to the strap of Bell-Cox in order to provide further reinforcement.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks: Applicant asserts Bell in view of Cox fails to disclose “the main body structure and the second yarn are elongated and do not break under a predeteremined amount of tensile force, and after the tensile force is released, the main body structure retracts, such that at least one second yarn at least partially protrudes from a plane of the main body structure to form a failure indicating loop”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office Action states “Bell discloses second yarns are frayed, stretched and ruptured. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second yarns of Bell have various different type of failure indicating structures such that a loop is formed and not broken wherein the second yarn protrudes from said surface of the main body”. It is noted, a damaged yarn that is frayed is not fully broken since only some fibers are frayed. Also, rupture and fraying could not happen and yet the fiber/yarn can loose elasticity which would indicate a damaged area in the form of protruding or bulging on the edge of being frayed.
The law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the appellant is claiming but only that the claims on appeal “read on” something disclosed in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Where functional limitations are recited for the structure set forth in the claim, the reference must also include structure which is capable of performing the recited function in order for the reference to be properly anticipatory. See In re Mott, 557 F.2d 266, 194 USPQ 305 (CCPA 1977). In the instant case, Bell is capable of functioning as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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 at 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights