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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 21-47, 55 and 57, species (a-i), species (b-ii), species (c-ii), species (d-i) and species (f-ii) in the reply filed on 08/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Office Action does not establish, with the required particularity, any serious search burden that would justify a restriction between Groups I, II and III. Applicants further argue that the groups of claims are not so unrelated as would require a burden beyond that of the normal burdens of examination. This argument has been considered but not found persuasive. MPEP § 808.02 recites that for the purposes of the initial requirement of a restriction, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation either separate classification, separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. Since the Examiner has shown a different classification for the groups of claims, a burden for examining all groups has been shown. Further, it is noted that Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the between the distinct species of Category A-D and F.
Claims 24, 27, 35, 37-38, 44-56 and 58 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/28/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 26, in line 2 amend “the walls” to “walls” in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 28 and 41-43 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.
In reference to claim 28, the limitation “the re-entrant geometry axis” is recited in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend “the re-entrant geometry axis” to “the axis”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language.
In reference to claims 41-43, the limitation “configured to interlock” is recited in line 18. It is unclear what is meant by “configured” or how the first body must be modified to be considered “configured to interlock with the second body”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “configured to interlock” will be interpreted as interlocked. It is advised to amend “configured to interlock” to “interlocked”.
Regarding dependent claims 42 and 43, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 41 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 23, 25-26, 30-32, 34, 36, 39-40 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leatt et al. (US 2017/0172242) (Leatt).
In reference to claims 21, 25 and 57, Leatt discloses a helmet to protect against impacts comprising at least one deflector comprising a body that is connectable to an impact absorbing line ([0001]; [0005]; [0009]) (corresponding to a helmet; a flexible energy absorbing system comprising a body). The deflector includes a border along at least part of the deflector’s periphery, a hub and at least one flexible element extending between the hub and the border ([0009]; [0034]) (corresponding to the body comprising: an inner cell and an outer cell). Figures 1 and 2, provided below, shows the hub 20 is retained within the border 18 and a number of deformable elements in the form of curved spokes 22 extend between the hub and the border in a spiral configuration (corresponding to the inner cell is retained within the outer cell by a web).
Leatt further discloses the deflectors are made of a non-Newtonian material such as a dilatant material ([0014]; [0033]) (corresponding to the body comprises a strain rate sensitive material). Figures 2 and 9, provided below, show the hollow profile of the shells 19, 21 of the hub 20 and the border 18 have a hollow profile including overhangs (corresponding to the inner cell comprises a first overhang at an opening of the inner cell, and wherein the outer cell comprises a second overhang at an opening of the outer cell). It is noted that the term overhang is interpreted as a projection of the cell wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Leatt further discloses the hollow profile of the shells allow the hub and border to collapse under pressure and expand sideways ([0036]; [0045]). Figure 9 further shows the hollow profile have a soft “dome” shape like the re-entrant geometry shown in the instant application’s Specification at Figs. 8c-8e. Thus, it is clear the hub and border include re-entrant geometry (corresponding to at least one of the inner cell and the outer cell comprise a re-entrant geometry; both the inner cell and the outer cell comprise a re-entrant geometry).
PNG
media_image2.png
258
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
490
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 23, Leatt discloses the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Figures 2 and 9, provided above, shows the border 18 is larger than the hub 20 (corresponding to the second overhang of the outer cell is larger than the first overhang of the inner cell).
In reference to claim 26, Leatt discloses the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Figure 9, provided above, shows the hollow profile of the shells have a soft “dome” shape including a ridge or corrugation (corresponding to the re-entrant geometry is formed from one of corrugations and folds, the walls of each corrugation or fold being inwardly angled towards each other to form a re-entrant angle).
In reference to claim 30. Leatt discloses the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Figures 1 and 3, provided below, shows the deflector 14 includes the central body in the form of the hub 20 and the border 18 extending around its circumference, with a number of deformable elements in the form of curved spokes 22 extending between the hub and border in a spiral configuration ([0034]) (corresponding to the inner cell is retained at the center of the outer cell by the web, such that the inner cell and outer cell are arranged concentrically in relation to one another).
PNG
media_image4.png
481
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
481
612
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 31 and 34, Leatt discloses the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Figures 1 and 2, provided above, shows the deflector 14 includes a plurality of curved radial spokes 22 extending between the hub 20 and the border 18 (corresponding to the web comprises one or more ribs extending between the inner cell and the outer cell; the one or more ribs comprise one or more radial blades).
In reference to claim 32, Leatt discloses the limitations of claim 31, as discussed above. Figures 1 and 2, provided above, shows the deflector 14 includes a plurality of curved spokes 22 with open spaces between the spokes 22 and extending between the hub 20 and the border 18 (corresponding to the one or more ribs define one or more holes in the web).
In reference to claims 36 and 39-40, Leatt discloses the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Leatt discloses the deflector is a unitary injection moulding of a dilatant material ([0033]) (corresponding to the web comprises a strain rate sensitive material; the web is integral to the inner cell and the outer cell; the inner cell and the outer cell comprise strain rate sensitive material).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-23, 25-26, 28-30, 36, 39-40 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marz et al. (US 2014/0007322) (Marz) in view of Plant (US 2012/0021167).
In reference to claim 21, 26, 36, 40 and 57, Marz teaches a shock absorbing layer for protective helmets ([0002]) (corresponding to a helmet). The shock absorbing layer comprises a plurality of spaced apart shock absorbing members; the shock absorbing layer is made from a material having excellent flexibility ([0013]; [0030]) (corresponding to a flexible energy absorbing system comprising a body).
The shock absorbing members include a hollow primary shock absorbing member and a secondary shock absorbing member ([0032]; [0043]) (corresponding to an inner cell and an outer cell). FIG. 8, provided below, shows the secondary shock absorbing member 240 is retained within the primary shock absorbing member 216 by a base plate 12 (corresponding to the inner cell is retained within the outer cell by a web). FIG. 8 shows the primary shock absorbing member 216 has a bellowed shape ([0053]) (corresponding to at least one of the inner cell and the outer cell comprises a re-entrant geometry; the outer cell comprises a second overhang at an opening of the outer cell; the re-entrant geometry is formed from one of corrugations and folds, the walls the walls of each corrugation or fold being inwardly angled towards each other to from a re-entrant angle).
Marz further teaches the secondary shock absorbing member can have two frustrum-shaped portions, for example frusto-conical portions, having their relatively largest ends interconnected ([0043]) (corresponding to the inner cell comprises a first overhang at an opening of the inner cell).
Marz does not explicitly teach the shock absorbing member comprises a strain rate sensitive material.
Plant teaches a flexible energy absorbing material being a dilatant material ([0001]). Plant further teaches a need to provide an energy absorbing material which is both light and flexible and therefore comfortable to wear while still being able to dissipate and absorb shock impacts applied to it thereby providing effective protection to the wearer ([0003]). The energy absorbing material is a dilatant compound material which remains soft and flexible until it is subject to impact when its characteristics change rendering it temporarily rigid, the material then returns to its normal flexible state after impact ([0068]) (corresponding to a strain rate sensitive material).
PNG
media_image6.png
705
926
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of Plant to use a strain rate sensitive material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the shock absorbing layer of Marz be made from the flexible energy absorbing material, in order to provide a shock absorbing layer that is both light and flexible and therefore comfortable to wear while still being able to dissipate and absorb shock impacts applied to it thereby providing effective protection for the wearer, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 22, Marz in view of Plant teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Marz further teaches the secondary shock absorbing member has a different shape from that of the primary shock absorbing member (claim 14; FIGS. 3 and 8) (corresponding to a geometry of the second overhang of the outer cell is different from a geometry of the first overhang of the inner cell).
In reference to claim 23, Marz in view of Plant teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. FIGS. 8 shows the primary shock absorbing member is larger than the secondary shock absorbing member. Therefore, when the secondary shock absorbing member includes two frustrum-shaped portions, it is clear the portions of the secondary shock absorbing member is smaller than the portions of the primary shock absorbing member (corresponding to the second overhang of the outer cell is larger than the first overhang of the inner cell).
In reference to claim 25, Marz in view of Plant teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Marz further teaches the primary member includes two bellow sections. The two bellow sections collapse at a similar rate, but require a smaller radial footprint, i.e., less radial space, to do so than a member including two frustrum-shaped portions ([0054]). The bellow sections may have different geometrical designs to allow for varying collapse rates, which could provide better energy management from low to high energy within one design ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the secondary shock absorbing member include a bellow shape, in order to control the rate of collapse of the member and provide better energy management from low to high energy within a single design, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claims 28 and 29, Marz in view of Plant teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Marz further teaches the primary shock absorbing member include a bellowed shape ([0053]) (correspond to the re-entrant geometry is along an axis). The primary and secondary shock absorbing members have a circular cross-section, however alternative shapes are possible ([0032]; [0043]).
Marz in view of Plant does not explicitly teach the members are elliptical. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the members be elliptical, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Given that members have an elliptical shape, it is clear the members comprise a major and a minor axis, such that the element is anisotropic and the major axis and the minor axis are perpendicular to the re-entrant geometry axis.
In reference to claims 30 and 39, Marz in view of Plant teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Marz further teaches the secondary member extends from the base plate within and at a center of the primary member, wherein the layer is monolithic ([0043]) (corresponding to the inner cell is retained at the center of the outer cell by the web, such that the inner cell and outer cell are arranged concentrically in relation to one another; the web is integral to the inner cell and the outer cell).
Claims 22 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leatt.
In reference to claim 22, Leatt teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Leatt further teaches the hollow profile of the shells of the hub and the border allow the features to collapse under pressure and expand sideways ([0036]; [0045]).
While Leatt does not explicitly teach the hub and the border have different geometries, as presently claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the hub and the border have different geometries, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In reference to claims 28 and 29, Leatt teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above. Leatt teaches the hollow profile of the shells allow the hub and border to collapse under pressure and expand sideways ([0036]; [0045]). Figure 9 further shows the hollow profile have a soft “dome” shape like the re-entrant geometry shown in the instant application’s Specification at Figs. 8c-8e. Thus, it is clear the hub and border include re-entrant geometry along an axis (corresponding to the re-entrant geometry is along an axis).
Leatt does not explicitly teach the hub and the border are elliptical. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the hub and the border have an elliptical shape, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Given that the hub and the border of Leatt have an elliptical shape, it is clear the hub and border comprise a major and a minor axis, such that the deflector is anisotropic and the major axis and the minor axis are perpendicular to the re-entrant geometry axis.
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marz in view of Plant as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 2011/0296594) (Thomas).
In reference to claims 31-32 and 34, Marz in view of Plant teaches the limitations of claim 21, as discussed above.
Marz in view of Plant does not explicitly teach the base plate comprises ribs, as presently claimed.
Thomas teaches an energy management structure for a helmet ([0001]). The structure includes a first component, a second component and a third component ([0084]). The third component connects the first component to the second component ([0085]). The third component includes apertures; the apertures open into recesses between the first component and the second component ([0086]) (corresponding to the web comprises one or more ribs extending between the inner cell and the outer cell; the one or more ribs define one or more holes in the web). The third structure further comprises radial ribs (FIG. 1d) (corresponding to one or more ribs comprise one or more radial blades).
Thomas further teaches the apertures assists with the evacuation of air, wherein the evacuation of air from within the structure provides enhanced compressibility of the structure ([0086]).
In light of the motivation of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the base plate between the primary and secondary shock absorbing members of Marz in view of Plant include apertures, in order to provide enhanced compressibility of the shock absorbing layer, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 33, Marz in view of Plant and Thomas teaches the limitations of claim 32, as discussed above.
Marz in view of Plant and Thomas does not explicitly teach the apertures comprise a re-entrant geometry, as presently claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the apertures have a re-entrant geometry, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
While Leatt teaches a plurality of deflectors ([0029]) and Marz in view of Plant teaches the shock absorbing layer includes a plurality of spaced apart shock absorbing members (Marz, [0013]). However, Leatt does not teach or suggest the a first deflector is configured to interlock with a second deflector or a first shock absorbing member of Marz in view of Plant is configured to interlock with a second shock absorbing member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Ferrara et al. (US 2013/0153350), is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. However, the rejections using this reference would be cumulative to the rejections of record set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
