DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 30 January 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13, and 15-17 has/have been amended, and claim(s) 11 is/are canceled. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 should recite, “wherein the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish are without interlocking pieces, ridges, channels, ribs, crenulations, flanges, or other rough, unsmooth, or non-planar features”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 15 (and claims 16-20 at least for depending from a rejected claim) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish are without interlocking pieces, ridges, channel, ribs, crenulations, flanges, or other rough, unsmooth, or non-planar features to prevent relative movement or sliding and comprise a surface texture skewness of less than or equal to 1 mm”. It is unclear how far a texture or finish can deviate from being “rough” or “unsmooth” while still being considered “rough” or “unsmooth”. Further, it is unclear what structures are being referred to as being prevented from “relative movement or sliding”. Further, it is unclear if the first slidable finish, the second slidable finish, both finishes, or neither finish comprise a “surface texture skewness of less than or equal to 1mm”. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish are without interlocking pieces, ridges, channels, ribs, crenulations, flanges, or other rough, unsmooth, or non-planar features [[to]]that are configured to prevent relative movement or sliding of the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish relative to one another, and wherein the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish each comprise a surface texture skewness of less than or equal to 1 mm”. Further, “rough” and “unsmooth” are not being considered because it is unclear what boundaries these two limitations define.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piper US 20040250340.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Piper discloses a protective helmet (Fig. 3 #301) for rotational energy management (Abstract), comprising: an outer energy management layer (Fig. 3 #314) comprising a first material (¶0028, 0030-0031, 0125), a first outer surface (Piper Annot. Fig. 3), and a first inner surface (Piper Annot. Fig. 3; ¶0114, 0125) opposite the first outer surface (Fig. 3), the first inner surface comprising a first slidable finish (Figs. 9-10 #530; ¶0028, 0030-0031, 0125-0126), the first slidable finish being integrallv formed with the outer energy management layer (¶0028, 0030-0031, 0114, 0125); and an inner energy management layer (Fig. 2, #313) disposed within the outer energy management layer (Fig. 3) and comprising a second material (¶0028, 0030-0031, 0125), a second outer surface (Piper Annot. Fig. 3) oriented towards the outer energy management layer (Fig. 3; ¶0114), and a second inner surface (Piper Annot. Fig. 3) opposite the second outer surface (Fig. 3), the second outer surface comprising a second slidable finish (Figs. 9-10 #530; ¶0028, 0030-0031, 0125-0126) that contacts the first slidable finish (¶0028, 0030-0031, 0114-0115, 0125-0126), the second slidable finish being integrally formed with the inner energy management layer (¶0028, 0030-0031, 0125), wherein an interface between the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish is devoid of lubricant or an interstitial slip layer (Figs. 9-10 show nodules #530 which are not a lubricant nor a slip layer but is still an interface between the first and second slidable finishes; ¶0125-0126).
Regarding Claim 5, Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 1, wherein the first slidable finish is configured to directly contact the second slidable finish to form a low friction interface between the first inner surface and the second outer surface (¶0015-0016, 0028, 0030-0031, 0114).
Regarding Claim 6, Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 1, wherein the outer energy management layer comprises a first lateral side (Fig. 1 shows the left lateral side) and a second lateral side (Fig. 1 shows the left lateral side, it is assumed that the right lateral side is present), and wherein the second outer surface extends continuously from the first lateral side to the second lateral side of the outer energy management layer (¶0107-0115).
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) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Von Holst US 6658671.
Regarding Claim 2, Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first slidable finish comprises a thickness less than or equal to 1 millimeter (mm), and the second slidable comprises a thickness less than or equal to 1 mm.
Van Holst teaches a protective helmet (Fig. 3c #1) with a first slidable finish (Col. 3, l. 37-38, first configuration) comprising a thickness less than or equal to 1 mm (Col. 2, l. 61-63), and a second slidable finish (Col. 3, l. 37-38, second configuration) comprising a thickness less than or equal to 1 mm (Col. 2, l. 61-63),
Both Piper and Van Holst teach analogous inventions in the art of protective helmets with sliding layers. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Piper with the teachings of Van Holst such that the thickness of the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish would be less than or equal to 2mm so that, “the mass and construction height of the helmet can be kept down, which increases wearer comfort and further reduces the risk of injury” (Van Holst, Col. 2, l. 2-4), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(A).
Regarding Claim 7, Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the protective helmet further comprising: an outer shell, the outer energy management layer disposed within the outer shell and the first outer surface oriented towards the outer shell.
Von Holst teaches a protective helmet (Fig. 3c #1) comprising: an outer shell (Fig. 3c #2”), an outer energy management layer (Fig. 3c #2’) disposed within the outer shell (Fig. 1c) and the first outer surface oriented towards the outer shell (Fig. 3c).
Both Piper and Van Holst teach analogous inventions in the art of protective helmets with sliding layers. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Piper with the teachings of Van Holst such that protective helmet would have an outer shell with the outer energy management layer disposed within the outer shell and the first outer surface oriented towards the outer shell so that the energy woold be displaced between the multiple layers, “during simultaneous absorption of rotational energy in the helmet, it is possible to reduce the injurious forces acting on the wearer, with a reduced risk of injury as a consequence,” (Von Holst Col. 1, l. 63-66).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piper as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Komvopoulos US 7879418.
Regarding Claim 3, Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish each comprise a surface texture skewness of less than or equal to 1 mm.
Komvopoulos teaches a surface coating for polymeric materials (Title; Col. 1, l. 52-59) including a surface texture skewness (Col. 13, l. 26-31) being less than or equal to 1 mm (Col. 13, l. 26-31).
Piper and Komvopoulos teach analogous inventions in the art of coatings on polymeric surfaces. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the surface texture of Piper to include the surface texture skewness of Komvopoulos being less than or equal to 1 mm so that the film can, “provide for enhanced adhesive strength and can have flexible surface layers for increased lubricity” (Komvopoulos, Col. 1, l. 57-59).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piper, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lowe US 20150157083.
Regarding Claim 4, Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein: the outer energy management layer comprises expanded polystyrene (EPS), expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polyurethane (EPU), or expanded polyolefin (EPO), and the inner energy management layer comprises EPS, EPP, EPU, or EPO.
Lowe teaches a protective helmet with inner and outer energy management layers (¶0007) comprising EPS, EPO, or EPP (¶0007).
Piper and Lowe teach analogous inventions in the art of articles with polymeric surfaces. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the surface texture of Piper to include the polymer such as EPS, EPO, or EPP of Lowe so that the two energy management layers, “can provide boundary conditions at interfaces between layers of the multi-layer liner to deflect energy and manage energy dissipation for low-energy, mid-energy, and high-energy impacts,” (Lowe ¶0007).
Piper and Lowe do not expressly disclose the first and second glazes comprise EPS, EPP, EPU, or EPO. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the finishes being EPS, EPP, EPU, or EPO since doing so would provide a similar slidable surface as that taught by the prior art, and since it has been held to be within the general skillset of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis for its suitability for the intended use for creating a slidable layer. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 8 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piper in view of Komvopoulos.
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Piper discloses a protective helmet (Fig. 3 #301) for rotational energy management (Abstract), comprising: an outer energy management layer (Fig. 3 #314) comprising a first material (¶0028, 0030-0031), a first outer surface (Piper Annot. Fig. 3), and a first inner surface (Piper Annot. Fig. 3; ¶0114) opposite the first outer surface (Fig. 3), the first inner surface comprising a first slidable finish (Figs. 9-10 #530; ¶0028, 0030-0031, 0125-0126), the first slidable finish being integrally formed with the outer energy management layer (¶0028, 0030-0031, 0114, 0125); and an inner energy management layer (Fig. 2, #313) disposed within the outer energy management layer (Fig. 3) and comprising a second material (¶0028, 0030-0031, 0110-0115), a second outer surface (Piper Annot. Fig. 3) oriented towards the outer energy management layer (Fig. 3; ¶0114), and a second inner surface (Piper Annot. Fig. 3) opposite the second outer surface (Fig. 3), the second outer surface comprising a second slidable finish (Figs. 9-10 #530; ¶0028, 0030-0031, 0125-0126), the second slidable finish being integrally formed with the inner energy management layer (¶0028, 0030-0031, 0125), but does not expressly disclose wherein the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish each comprise a surface texture skewness of less than or equal to 1 mm.
Komvopoulos teaches a surface coating for polymeric materials (Title; Col. 1, l. 52-59) including a surface texture skewness (Col. 13, l. 26-31) being less than or equal to 1 mm (Col. 13, l. 26-31).
Piper and Komvopoulos teach analogous inventions in the art of coatings on polymeric surfaces. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the surface texture of Piper to include the surface texture skewness of Komvopoulos being less than or equal to 1 mm so that the film can, “provide for enhanced adhesive strength and can have flexible surface layers for increased lubricity” (Komvopoulos, Col. 1, l. 57-59).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified protective helmet of Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 8, wherein the first slidable finish is configured to directly contact the second slidable finish to form a low friction interface between the first inner surface and the second outer surface (¶0015-0016, 0028, 0030-0031, 0114).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified protective helmet of Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 8, wherein the outer energy management layer comprises a first lateral side (Fig. 1 shows the left lateral side) and a second lateral side (Fig. 1 shows the left lateral side, it is assumed that the right lateral side is present), and wherein the second outer surface extends continuously from the first lateral side to the second lateral side of the outer energy management layer (¶0107-0115).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piper and Komvopoulos as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Von Holst.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified protective helmet of Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose wherein: the first slidable finish comprises a thickness less than or equal to 2 mm, and the second slidable finish comprises a thickness less than or equal to 2 mm.
Van Holst teaches a protective helmet (Fig. 3c #1) with a first glaze (Col. 3, l. 37-38, first configuration) comprising a thickness less than or equal to 2 mm (Col. 2, l. 61-63), and a second glaze (Col. 3, l. 37-38, second configuration) comprising a thickness less than or equal to 2 mm (Col. 2, l. 61-63),
Both Piper (as modified by Komvopoulos) and Van Holst teach analogous inventions in the art of protective helmets. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Piper (as modified by Komvopoulos) with the teachings of Van Holst such that the thickness of the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish would be less than or equal to 2mm so that, “the mass and construction height of the helmet can be kept down, which increases wearer comfort and further reduces the risk of injury” (Van Holst, Col. 2, l. 2-4), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(A).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified protective helmet of Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose the protective helmet further comprising: an outer shell, the outer energy management layer disposed within the outer shell and the first outer surface oriented towards the outer shell.
Von Holst teaches a protective helmet (Fig. 3c #1) comprising: an outer shell (Fig. 3c #2”), an outer energy management layer (Fig. 3c #2’) disposed within the outer shell (Fig. 1c) and the first outer surface oriented towards the outer shell (Fig. 3c).
Both Piper (as modified by Komvopoulos) and Van Holst teach analogous inventions in the art of protective helmets with sliding layers. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Piper (as modified by Komvopoulos) with the teachings of Van Holst such that protective helmet would have an outer shell with the outer energy management layer disposed within the outer shell and the first outer surface oriented towards the outer shell so that the energy woold be displaced between the multiple layers, “during simultaneous absorption of rotational energy in the helmet, it is possible to reduce the injurious forces acting on the wearer, with a reduced risk of injury as a consequence,” (Von Holst Col. 1, l. 63-66).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piper, Komvopoulos, Von Holst, as applied to claims 8-9 above, and further in view of Lowe.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified protective helmet of Piper discloses the protective helmet of claim 9, but does not expressly disclose wherein: the outer energy management layer comprises expanded polystyrene (EPS), expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polyurethane (EPU), or expanded polyolefin (EPO), and the inner energy management layer comprises EPS, EPP, EPU, or EPO.
Lowe teaches a protective helmet with inner and outer energy management layers (¶0007) comprising EPS, EPO, or EPP (¶0007).
Piper (as modified by Komvopoulos and Von Holst) and Lowe teach analogous inventions in the art of articles with polymeric surfaces. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the surface texture of Piper (as modified by Komvopoulos and Von Holst) to include the polymer such as EPS, EPO, or EPP of Lowe so that the two energy management layers, “can provide boundary conditions at interfaces between layers of the multi-layer liner to deflect energy and manage energy dissipation for low-energy, mid-energy, and high-energy impacts,” (Lowe ¶0007).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 January 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 of claims 8 and 13-14 and 35 USC 103 of claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues:
Amending the claim to include, “the first slidable finish being integrally formed with the outer energy management layer;” and “the second slidable finish being integrally formed with the inner energy management layer, wherein an interface between the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish is devoid of lubricant or an interstitial slip layer” overcomes the prior art of record because Piper does not teach these limitations. (Remarks Page 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the term “integral” is defined simply as “formed as a unit with another part” (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 607 [10th ed. 1999]) and the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found, in the context of particular patents, that the patentee's use of the term “integral” encompasses both a unitary object and an object with multiple attached parts. (See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967–68 [C.C.P.A. 1965]; Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 887 F.2d 1070, 1073–74 [Fed. Cir. 1989]; Henderson v. Grable, 339 F.2d 465, 470 [C.C.P.A. 1964]; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055–56 [Fed. Cir. 1997]). As the first and second slidable finishes are attached to the outer and inner management layers, respectively, they are considered “integrally formed” therewith. Second, Piper ¶0125-0126 discloses the nodules #530, which are neither a lubricant nor an interstitial slip layer, and thus would qualify as an interface devoid of both these features. See 35 USC 102 rejection above.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 8, Applicant argues:
Amending the claim to include, “the first slidable finish being integrally formed with the outer energy management layer;” and “the second slidable finish being integrally formed with the inner energy management layer, wherein the first slidable finish and the second slidable finish each comprise a surface texture skewness of less than or equal to 1 mm” overcomes the prior art of record because Piper does not teach these limitations, and “Whatever Komvopoulos teaches about surface texture skewness, it does not teach or suggest that such property can be achieved by integrally forming a slidable finish with a substrate”. (Remarks Pages 4 & 7)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the term “integral” is defined simply as “formed as a unit with another part” (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 607 [10th ed. 1999]) and the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found, in the context of particular patents, that the patentee's use of the term “integral” encompasses both a unitary object and an object with multiple attached parts. (See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967–68 [C.C.P.A. 1965]; Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 887 F.2d 1070, 1073–74 [Fed. Cir. 1989]; Henderson v. Grable, 339 F.2d 465, 470 [C.C.P.A. 1964]; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055–56 [Fed. Cir. 1997]). As the first and second slidable finishes are attached to the outer and inner management layers, respectively, they are considered “integrally formed” therewith. Second, the Examiner notes that the prior art of Komvopoulos was used to teach that a slidable finish can have a surface texture skewness of less than or equal to 1mm, not that the specific slidable finish of Komvopoulos was being used to modify the first and second slidable finishes themselves of Piper. See 35 USC 103 rejection above.
Regarding the 30 January 2026 amendments to Independent Claim 15:
The Examiner notes that the amendments of 30 January 2026 to claim 15 overcome the prior art of record and no new art can presently be found. However, these amendments also raise new Claim Objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) which must be addressed in order for claims 15-20 to potentially be found allowable.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claims 1 and 8; however, as discussed in the rejection below and in the arguments above, claims 1 and 8 are not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732