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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Patent Application No. 2003/0221245) in view of Foster et al. (US Patent Application No. 2016/0295935) and Peregoy (US Patent Application No. 2022/0151325).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teach a layered composite material (page 2, paragraph [0014]), the layered composite material comprising a first layer comprising a soft foam (page 3, paragraph [0033]); a second layer comprising a hard foam (page 3, paragraph [0033]) a third layer comprising a thermoplastic compound (page 3, paragraph [0033], page 4, paragraph [0049]), wherein the first layer is bound to the second layer, the second layer is bound to the third layer (page 2, paragraph [0029], page 3, paragraphs [0031], [0033]).
Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprising a fourth layer comprising a rubber compound, wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns; wherein the third layer is bound to the fourth layer; wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening fluid, wherein the shear thickening fluid comprises a silica aerogel and an organic glycol. However, Foster et al. teach a layered composite material comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprises a fourth layer comprising a silica aerogel and an organic glycol. However, Peregoy et al. teach a layered composite material (page 1, paragraph [0004]), the layered composite material comprising a layer comprising silica aerogel (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0012], page 3, paragraph [0061]) and an organic glycol (page 5, paragraphs [0079], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layer of Peregoy et al. as the fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Lee et al., Foster et al. and Peregoy et al. do not disclose wherein the layered composite material has a height less than 0.85 inches and wherein the layered composite material attenuates at least 62% of an incident blast shockwave impulse for an incident blast shockwave with an incident blast pressure of 50 psi. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in height and incident blast shockwave involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the height and incident blast shockwave of Lee et al., Foster et al., and Peregoy et al. in order to provide for mitigation of heavy impacts and forces tending to shift headgear (Lee et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
The limitation “for mitigating blast shockwave energy" is deemed to be a statement with regard to intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. The material of Lee et al., as modified by Foster et al. and Peregoy et al., is capable of mitigating blast shockwave in that it contains the same constituents and displays the same characteristics as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the rubber compound comprises 15-25 wt% silica aerogel. However, Foster et al. teach a layered composite material comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]). Peregoy et al. teach a layered composite material (page 1, paragraph [0004]), the layered composite material comprising a layer comprising silica aerogel (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0012], page 3, paragraph [0061]) and an organic glycol (page 5, paragraphs [0079], [0081]).
Peregoy et al. do not disclose wherein the rubber compound comprises 15-25 wt% silica aerogel. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of silica aerogel in order to provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]) and use the silica aerogel of Peregoy et al. in order to provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the rubber compound is ethylene propylene diene monomer. However, Foster et al. teach a layered composite material comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is ethylene propylene diene monomer (page 8, paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. do not disclose wherein the layered composite material attenuates at least 79% of an incident blast shockwave impulse for an incident blast shockwave with an incident blast pressure of 50 psi. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in incident blast shockwave involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the incident blast shockwave of Lee et al., Foster et al., and Peregoy et al. in order to provide for mitigation of heavy impacts and forces tending to shift headgear (Lee et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. do not disclose wherein the layered composite material attenuates at least 79% of an incident blast shockwave impulse and at least 61% of an incident blast shockwave pressure for an incident blast shockwave with an incident blast pressure of 50 psi. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in incident blast shockwave involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the incident blast shockwave of Lee et al., Foster et al., and Peregoy et al. in order to provide for mitigation of heavy impacts and forces tending to shift headgear (Lee et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. teach wherein the first layer, the second layer and third layer are arranged such that the third layer contacts an incoming shockwave before the second layer, and the second layer contacts an incoming shockwave before the first layer (page 1, paragraph [0013], page 3, paragraphs [0031], [0033]).
Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprises a fourth layer comprising a rubber compound, wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns; wherein the third layer is bound to the fourth layer; wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening fluid, wherein the shear thickening fluid comprises a silica aerogel and an organic glycol. However, Foster et al. teach a layered composite material comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer such that the fourth layer contacts an incoming shockwave before the third layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprises a fourth layer comprising a silica aerogel and an organic glycol. However, Peregoy et al. teach a layered composite material (page 1, paragraph [0004]), the layered composite material comprising a layer comprising silica aerogel (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0012], page 3, paragraph [0061]) and an organic glycol (page 5, paragraphs [0079], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layer of Peregoy et al. as the fourth layer such that the fourth layer contacts an incoming shockwave before the third layer of Lee et al. in order to provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the fourth layer has a height of 0.0625-0.125 inches. However, Foster et al. teach a layered composite material comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprises a fourth layer comprising a silica aerogel and an organic glycol. However, Peregoy et al. teach a layered composite material (page 1, paragraph [0004]), the layered composite material comprising a layer comprising silica aerogel (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0012], page 3, paragraph [0061]) and an organic glycol (page 5, paragraphs [0079], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layer of Peregoy et al. as the fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Foster et al. and Peregoy et al. do not disclose wherein the fourth layer has a height of 0.0625-0.125 inches. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in height involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the height of the fourth layer in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]) and provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. teach a helmet liner (page 2, paragraphs [0014], [0025]), the helmet liner comprising a first layer comprising a soft foam (page 3, paragraph [0033]); a second layer comprising a hard foam (page 3, paragraph [0033]) a third layer comprising a thermoplastic compound (page 3, paragraph [0033], page 4, paragraph [0049]), wherein the first layer is bound to the second layer, the second layer is bound to the third layer (page 2, paragraph [0029], page 3, paragraphs [0031], [0033]), wherein the helmet liner fits in a helmet such that the first layer contacts a user’s head (page 2, paragraph [0014], page 3, paragraph [0033]).
Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprises a fourth layer comprising a rubber compound, wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns; wherein the third layer is bound to the fourth layer; wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening fluid, wherein the shear thickening fluid comprises a silica aerogel and an organic glycol. However, Foster et al. teach a helmet liner (page 17, paragraph [0166]) comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the layer contacts the helmet such that there are no gaps between the user’s head and the helmet during use (page 17, paragraph [0165]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the material comprises a fourth layer comprising a silica aerogel and an organic glycol. However, Peregoy et al. teach a layered composite material (page 1, paragraph [0004]), the layered composite material comprising a layer comprising silica aerogel (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0012], page 3, paragraph [0061]) and an organic glycol (page 5, paragraphs [0079], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layer of Peregoy et al. as the fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Lee et al., Foster et al. and Peregoy et al. do not disclose wherein the layered composite material has a height less than 0.85 inches and wherein the layered composite material attenuates at least 62% of an incident blast shockwave impulse for an incident blast shockwave with an incident blast pressure of 50 psi. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in height and incident blast shockwave involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the height and incident blast shockwave of Lee et al., Foster et al., and Peregoy et al. in order to provide for mitigation of heavy impacts and forces tending to shift headgear (Lee et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
The limitation “for mitigating blast shockwave energy" is deemed to be a statement with regard to intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02. The material of Lee et al., as modified by Foster et al. and Peregoy et al., is capable of mitigating blast shockwave in that it contains the same constituents and displays the same characteristics as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the rubber compound comprises 15-25 wt% silica aerogel. However, Foster et al. teach a helmet liner (page 17, paragraph [0166]) comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]). Peregoy et al. teach a layered composite material (page 1, paragraph [0004]), the layered composite material comprising a layer comprising silica aerogel (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0012], page 3, paragraph [0061]) and an organic glycol (page 5, paragraphs [0079], [0081]).
Peregoy et al. do not disclose wherein the rubber compound comprises 15-25 wt% silica aerogel. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of silica aerogel in order to provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]) and use the silica aerogel of Peregoy et al. in order to provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the rubber compound is ethylene propylene diene monomer. However, Foster et al. teach a helmet liner (page 17, paragraph [0166]) comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is ethylene propylene diene monomer (page 8, paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. do not disclose wherein the helmet liner attenuates at least 79% of an incident blast shockwave impulse for an incident blast shockwave with an incident blast pressure of 50 psi. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in incident blast shockwave involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the incident blast shockwave of Lee et al., Foster et al., and Peregoy et al. in order to provide for mitigation of heavy impacts and forces tending to shift headgear (Lee et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. do not disclose wherein the helmet liner attenuates at least 79% of an incident blast shockwave impulse and at least 61% of an incident blast shockwave pressure for an incident blast shockwave with an incident blast pressure of 50 psi. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in incident blast shockwave involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the incident blast shockwave of Lee et al., Foster et al., and Peregoy et al. in order to provide for mitigation of heavy impacts and forces tending to shift headgear (Lee et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 13, Foster et al. and Peregoy et al. do not disclose wherein the fourth layer has a height of 0.0625-0.125 inches. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in height involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the height of the fourth layer in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]) and provide a protective article that is relatively lightweight yet provides adequate thermal protection (Peregoy et al., page 1, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lee et al. fail to teach wherein the helmet liner is a headband, and wherein the headband fits in a helmet’s inner edges such that there are no gaps between the user’s head and the helmet during use. However, Foster et al. teach a helmet liner (page 17, paragraph [0166]) comprising multiple layers (page 6, paragraph [0090]), wherein one of the layers comprises a rubber compound (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound does not comprise any fibers or yarns (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the rubber compound is impregnated with a shear thickening polymer (page 8, paragraph [0105]), wherein the layer contacts the helmet such that there are no gaps between the user’s head and the helmet during use (page 17, paragraph [0165]), wherein the helmet liner is a headband (page 16, paragraph [0159], page 17, paragraph [0166]), and wherein the headband fits in a helmet’s inner edges such there are no gaps between the user’s head and the helmet during use (page 16, paragraph [0159], page 17, paragraph [0166]), wherein the helmet liner further comprises at least one cut in the headband such that the headband lies flat when not in use, and wherein the headband can be folded into the helmet’s inner edges such that there are no gaps between the user’s head and the helmet during use (page 16, paragraph [0159], page 17, paragraph [0166]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rubber compound of Foster et al. as a fourth layer of Lee et al. in order to protect a person or item from bodily harm, but also allows the person sufficient movement, visibility and comfort (Foster et al., page 1, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. teach wherein the helmet liner can be reused more than 1 time (page 2, paragraph [0014], page 4, paragraph [0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 3/4/2026